Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 16

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< December 15 December 17 >

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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italia Mura

edit
Italia Mura (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 appear to meet WP:GNG. Little to no hits via quick search on Google. Sarrail (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree it does not meet notability requirements. KeepItGoingForward (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While the English article doesn't show the notability of the topic, the Japanese article has at least four references to articles about the topic in various newspapers. I haven't had a chance to look at the other refs more closely, but there may be other refs that can be used, too. I'll see what I can do to add them in the next few days. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha ha-Okay, there's plenty of time. Sarrail (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AbstainDelete I also looked at the ja.wiki article, which has eight sources. However 4-8 cover the section “post-closure situation”. Only 1-3 are about the mall itself. 1 is a dead link but appears to have been to the winding up order closing the mall; 2 is from an online news source, again covering the windup and summarising the mall’s history, and 3 is from the same news source covering the inventory sale after it closed. That’s nowhere near GNG so unless there are other Japanese sources I think deletion is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded it, incorporating some of the jawiki article refs (not all the refs there could be used) as well as a New York Times article and another English article about the place. With these two new sources, and the Japanese sources about various aspects of its closure, I think it meets WP:GNG. I also added two images and an infobox to the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarrail, KeepItGoingForward, and Mccapra: due to the updates on the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most sources seem to be around its bankruptcy. What in your view makes Italia Mura notable? It definitely is an interesting idea. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @KeepItGoingForward: Yes, but some of those (including the New York Times article) discuss its actual operations. All of the sources I used are more than passing mentions of the complex, and given how many sources there are, I think it now meets WP:GNG. It certainly didn't before all those changes, but I think the improvements show its notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, some of them talk about the construction fraud as well, which has nothing (directly) to do with the bankruptcy. With references discussing its opening, operations, bankruptcy, construction fraud, and even usage of the site after the closure (two different uses), it's more than just one event being covered. It shows that the topic of the article was discussed in detail multiple times by multiple reliable sources, therefore meeting WP:GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have done nice work with the article's expansion and I do see a small case for notability, but I also don't see any specific sources that are extensively about Italia Mura. For instance the New York time article is about "offering an idealized distillation of a foreign culture" and not specifically about Italia Mura. The Japanese sources appear to be quick news releases/articles. May be it is worth asking an admin that reads Japanese to review the sources and the AFD? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recognize that it's difficult to determine notability in other languages and cultures, a problem that is only compounded by the time frame and the, let's say, not exactly archive-friendly practices of the Japanese press that make anything before around 2007 in Japanese difficult to find with Google searches. Personally I think that Nihonjoe's work already shows that the topic is notable, and that the various objections raised based on the why and how of the coverage seem to fall under WP:NNC and should be handled per WP:DUE as an editing matter. But I would also add that it's simply not plausible that this lacked coverage around the time of its opening. For example, it showed up in the 2005 Nagoya episode of Adomachi (a long-running information/variety show that goes to cities/neighborhoods and has celebrities and such pitch their favorite things about the city, which are then ranked for entertainment purposes). I think the "possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article", which we are instructed to consider under our fundamental notability guideline, is high, so I come down on the keep side of things. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "fundamental notability guideline" and well the possibility may exist for notability-indicating sources, possibilities do not demonstrate notability, so I struggle with using that as a reason to keep an article. The episode may demonstrate notability if the whole (or most of it) episode was dedicated to Italia Mura. Was it? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Creek Window Company

edit
Thompson Creek Window Company (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)

AFD as PROD is contested. I didn't find any in-depth coverage of the company. Being visited by President Obama once didn't inherit notability to the company. A search on Google just showed routine coverage, not in-depth coverage of the company. Failed WP:CORPDEPTH. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United States of America, and Maryland. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think with the Obama pieces (there is more than one, but only one is used in the article) and this interview with the CEO [1] having some background on the company. This is a feature article in the Washington Post [2]. Might just be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The article has two pieces on Obama's visit, one is an extremely short announcement, whereas another is long but primarily depends on quotes and routine statistics, including employees, size of headquarters, openings, and general information on Obama, but I couldn't see much WP:CORPDEPTH meeting commentary, the piece mainly goes over standard notices and statistics, so IMO it probably fails CORPDEPTH. The first Washington Post article Oaktree b linked is an interview that is likely primary, whereas WP:NCORP requires secondary sources (NCORP classifies memoirs or interviews by executives to be primary). Moreover, the article has little independent direct non-trivial commentary. The second Washington post article is more debatable, being significantly longer and giving more background into the company, at the same time much of the piece is quotes, with much of the piece going over routine statistics excluded per CORPDEPTH, e.g., Wuest said his firm grossed around $67 million, and this year he expects that number to hit $75 million while serving 10,000 customers. The average job runs about $8,700, he said, He oversees 413 employees, including 50 part-timers, and they plan to build a 125,000-square-foot window factory that will triple production to nearly 200,000 windows a year and expand throughout the mid-Atlantic appear to be IMO routine details. Otherwise, my WP:BEFORE search mainly found routine announcements and press releases, e.g., 1, 2, 3. So IMO there is two plausible refs, one probably not meeting CORPDEPTH and another debatable, so I'm at weak delete. Though, Oaktree b if you find more sources please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of slave ships with the option of merging any encyclopedic content. I shouldn't have to say this, but I will, for the benefit of the peanut gallery; this discussion isn't about slave ships in general, or about the list of slave ships, or about establishing precedent for all slave ships: it's about whether or not we keep a standalone article on this particular slave ship.
Some arguments to keep are entirely non-specific to this article and not based in policy; I am setting them aside completely. The other arguments to keep hinge on the database of slave ships: no other substantive secondary source has been provided. I believe the Slave ship database is admissible as a source; it is far more detailed than anything we usually refer to as a database at AfD. Nonetheless, the argument to keep involved WP:IAR, as it's suggesting that that the criterion of multiple sources in WP:GNG should not be enforced. I do not dismiss this argument; we can certainly make exceptions if consensus is found.
To keep a standalone article, however, we need not only evidence of notability, but evidence that the content cannot be reasonably presented as part of a larger topic. The arguments to keep are substantively weaker on this issue. The argument has been made that slave ships were crimes against humanity that need to be preserved for the historical record. I don't think anybody here disputes this principle; but there's no reason that preservation can't happen in a list, rather than in a standalone article. What pieces of this article are actually encyclopedic and specific to this ship?
Finally, at least one !vote noted that the list itself is not currently very detailed. This is a fixable issue, and I suggest that if anyone wanted to devote their time to improving our coverage of this topic, they do so with the overview list, rather than on pages that have very little available information. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James (1806 ship)

edit
James (1806 ship) (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 or indication of why this would be a notable ship. Note that Inikori, the only substantial non-database source, is not about this ship but a general one. Fram (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you did not just do drive-by ivotes. You ivote on all ARS project submissions but you never do a single thing to try to improve any of the articles. It is not possible to rescue an article in this way. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot be improved to meet GNG, because it is not notable. You're asking the impossible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the note on WP:GNG states that databases do not constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation the reference Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade - Database is far more than a trivial mention and fulfills significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content Lyndaship (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ship was used for two slave trades. A lot of ships surely did more than that. What makes this one notable? A lot of slaves surely died on such voyages, at that time it was common enough I don't believe that adds to its notability. Dream Focus 18:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keep votes fail to make any policy-based argument that this article should be retained. Non-notable ship stub based on databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and deleteredirect - I think that it is unnecessary to see this as purely binary issue. There is no doubt that the slave trade and slave ships comprise notable subjects in themselves and to provide detail for the latter we already have the list article List of slave ships. There is no requirement for each list entry to meet WP requirements for its own article (though they must of course have appropriate referencing as, for example in the "List of shipwrecks..." articles), and that is already the case for the slave ships list in particular. I see advantage in at least those entries without their own articles being expanded to "summary stubs" of relevant material as in, for example, Lists of Empire ships. Perhaps colleagues, including those who have already !voted above, might consider this course. Davidships (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, since my suggestion not taken up, on reflection leaving a redirect to List of slave ships would be appropriate if there is useful content there. But in any case that would fall outside this AfD process. Davidships (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement. (See the AfD on 2 March 2018 on SS Corsea. I realize that WP doesn't recognize precedent but requires re litigation each time. As Desertarun points out above, once an article is deleted it is hard to improve it especially when improvement often takes the form of a line at a time. Lastly, one of the reasons I left economic forecasting was that I realized that no one can predict the future; I don't know what future research will discover. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is for deleting articles that are not notable, and you've failed to make any real argument that this is notable. Ergo, this is in the right place, and your argument is wholly without merit. Are you just going to say "AfD doesn't apply to my articles" on every single ship AfD? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do exercise judgement in which AfDs I dispute, but being reasonable is apparently a losing approach when dealing with people who don't. I have corrected the link to SS Corsea. It was the AfD on her where I got the sentence "AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement", which was the community consensus at the time. You might look at that article. Again, it is difficult to improve an article that as been deleted. Very recently, someone did a blank and redirect on London, rather than bothering to submit an AfD. An editor reverted that action and that editor and another found more than enough information to establish notability, including finding a book published in October 2022 that devotes a chapter to London's loss. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look at the article in question just now. Other than the addition of an infobox, it remains 3 sentences long and entirely unimproved since the AfD, with only 1 source - I'm not sure how that's supposed to be some damning proof that notable ships are being AfD'd wrongly. I also read through the AfD in question; I am of the opinion it was wrongly closed. Regardless, you have failed to make any argument that this ship - not London, not SS Corsea, not the Queen Mary II, but this ship - is notable. I'm not sure how calling that out counts as being unreasonable. Show us the sources that show this ship is notable, if they exist. Again, you're asking us to accept "AfD doesn't apply to my articles" and you'll find that's not going to get any traction. People have varying stances on inclusionism/deletionism, but I think you're about the only one to argue "my articles are immune to AfD because I say so". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepI agree completely with User:Lyndaship. I find the Slave Voyages database credible and significant enough to satisfy WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 06:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • GNG would still require multiple such sources, the slave database (if one accepts it for GNG reasons) is just one. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "require" is overstating it a bit. GNG is guidance, so it guides rather than requires and even then, the guidance actually says that more than one source is "generally expected", meaning it is sometimes OK to not have it. Fortunately, there are other sources.
      Anyway, in a system without of firm rules, a system that seeks informed opinion based on guidance, I've been guided by WP:GNG and opine that we should keep this. CT55555(talk) 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Everything I Don't Like Is Optional: An Article Rescue Squadron Member's Guide To Wikipedia Debate". Now available in bookstores everywhere. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You can think that, but I'm literally quoting the guidelines and one of the pillars of the encyclopaedia...WP:5P5 CT55555(talk) 01:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And I interpret your interpretation of 5P5 as clearly contradicting 5P5's statement that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". What you are arguing is clearly against the spirit of GNG, despite your bending of the wording. Following your logic, we can then argue that articles don't require any sources at all, because GNG only "guides". That's the logical endpoint of your reasoning, and it is seriously flawed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also find the database generally credible, but it's just a database about every slave ship and lacks prose coverage (or even its own sources based on prose coverage) that would be more significant as a basis for individual articles here. Of course many slave ships can be notable, but I don't think all slave ships are notable by virtue of being in a database of all slave ships. Reywas92Talk 14:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in slave database for this ship: The slave database for this ship comprises 16 sources as follows:

  • LR1807: Lloyd's Register of Shipping, 1764, 1768, 1776, 1778-84, 1786-1787, 1789-1808 (all published in London).
  • BNA (Kew, London)
  • Board of TradeADM7/375:British National Archives (Kew), Admiralty
  • T70/1583:British National Archives (Kew)
  • T70/1584:British National Archives (Kew)
  • PP,1806(265),XIII,no.7: Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers: 1777, Accounts and Papers,
  • LiverpoolDirectory,97-100: Gore's Directory (Liverpool, 1807).
  • LList, 18 July 1806:
  • New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
  • LList, 9 Sept 1806:
  • New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
  • LList, 23 Sept 1806:
  • New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
  • LList, 2 Jan 1807:
  • New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
  • MMM, C/EX/L/5/6,1806.001: Merseyside Maritime Museum, Liverpool Registers of Merchant Ships, Subsidiary Register Books
Nice try. You can't cite one source and say "but this source in turn cites multiple sources!" That's not how it works. You're misleadingly framing it as "it cites SIXTEEN SOURCES" when in reality it cites Lloyd's list nine times, and other registers and databases. And for all of those sources, the database only manages just some numbers and very basic information, not significant coverage. This is becoming a disruptive refusal to get the point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Formidable per the data base cites. Historical per there were only so many named slave ships and Wikipedia's sourced articles on the topic maintains that historical record. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Only so many"? There are more than 36,000 slave ship voyages in the database, accounting for thousands of named slave ships (this metric seems to be absent from the database, but it looks like some 8,000 named ships). A named slave ship is not a rare thing at all. Fram (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, interesting facts. That there were many ships doesn't make this page less worthy but highlights that an editor has taken an interest in this particular ship and presented it to the world as one of Wikipedia's examples with vertifiable coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is hardly a reason to keep an article. Every article is created because an editor has taken an interest and that particular topic and presented it to the world, and it is not as if the article creator here has picked out this ship specifically for some reason: they create countless ship articles, some about clearly notable vessels, others about absolutely run-of-the-mill ones, without seemingly making any distinction. NOthing sets this slave ship apart from the thousands of others, which is why it is an entry in a database but not a topic which anyone ever has given specific attention to before this Wikipedia article (and Wikipedia should never be the first to do so). Fram (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Acad Ronin has made a very large number of ship articles. Plenty are perfectly fine articles, but some are non-notable and only based on databases. This is an example of the latter. Not sure how that translates to justifying its retention in the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, nor does it indicate an editor has taken a particular interest in this ship, though I guess you could say I've taken an interest in it at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments to delete are somewhat stronger. The arguments to keep hinge on the detailed entry in the database of slave ships being sufficient, which is a rather unusual argument, so relisting to allow more discussion of it rather than closing and inevitably being dragged to DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too much of this article is un-referenced and I am unable to discover where that data came from. I created an entry for the James on the List of slave ships page. Note that the date here (1806) is the date of only one voyage; the database gives (at least - yargh! no search function) two entries, one from 1806 and one from 1807. It's clear that the database itself, while well-curated, is incomplete. All of the other sources are archival lists (insurers), or in one case an academic article that only includes the James in a supplemental list. If there is additional information I think it should be added to the entry on the list page. There are probably only a few such ships for which there is enough information to warrant an entire page. Lamona (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To those who say "but we'd have 36,000 of these articles!" I say: "good." Abeg92contribs 23:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my year and a half on Wikipedia, I have participated in many an AfD and encountered a wide variety of perspectives on notability and what we should include in the encyclopedia. Yours, without doubt, is the single most inexplicable and wrongheaded I have ever encountered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Can also do a very selective redirect/merge to List of slave ships or the like as well if desired, but probably shouldn't have all this detail if done. Not convinced this ship has had significant coverage, a naval database of all ships ever is interesting but probably not in Wikipedia's scope. SnowFire (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is mistaken. NOTDATABASE is routinely used to delete things that are indisputably true and verifiable, but are merely lines in a table somewhere. "Context" isn't enough. I will give an example - minor soldiers in a war. It's quite possible to find a source that Bob Example served in this war in this division, and use that to map out tons of context of what exactly that division did, the outcome of its battles and the war itself, etc. But unless we have some independent sources on Bob Example directly, it's not enough. (And even if you disagree this is good policy, hopefully you can agree that it has been used in the past to delete similar articles on minor entities in a table but that are part of some notable larger event - see the dispute on minor Olympians in pre-1920 Olympics for one example of such.) SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears you have misunderstood the slavevoyages website. It as a university research organisation that thoroughly collates thousands of independent sources to support and detail individual slave voyages. In the case of James's first voyage there are around 16 cites and for the second voyage there are another 6. So in total there are 22 cites. The example you've given just doesn't apply because each cite relates exactly to this ship. NOTDATABASE doesn't apply and this conversation at its heart is discussing whether slavevoyages represents, with its multiple cites, WP:SIGCOV. Desertarun (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has already been rebutted, so please stop repeating it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reply was "that's not how it works", that's not a rebuttal. Desertarun (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please at least attempt to actually engage with the substance of what I said, which was a lot more than just the first sentence you chose to quote. I'm really done trying to reason with you, since you're here to push your opinion which has no basis in policy or reality. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have already !voted above for Merge and redirect to List of slave ships, but I am concerned about the scope of the sample entry made by Lamona and "very selective merge" suggested by SnowFire. Where there is no specific linked article, the content in the list must give meaningful information about the ship and its slaving activity, otherwise it is of little use to the reader. That is why I commended the Lists of Empire ships articles as useful models (though better inline referencing should of course be provided). Davidships (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tine Čuk

edit
Tine Čuk (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:SPORTBASIC, interview on club's website (WP:PRIMARY) and database profiles are not enough to demonstrate notability. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leela Floyd

edit
Leela Floyd (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)

Sources do not demonstrate notability. A search for additional sources turned up nothing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Aliens (film)#Sets and technology. Creating a redirect allows for any pertinent content to be moved to the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaco (fictional spacecraft)

edit
Sulaco (fictional spacecraft) (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 afraid this fictional spacecraft fails WP:GNG. There is an analytical paragraph in etymology (Blackmore (1996) and Kreitzer (2002)) but it boils down to the fact that the name of this ship has been inspired by Conrad's work, and there is some scholarly analysis of the parallels. However, that is relevant to the Aliens movie, but not really to the ship. As the article itself notes "A number of other names in the franchise are based on Conrad's work as well.", and what is notable is this fact, not the particular case of this ship. Other than this, sources are of poor reliability, generally mention this in passing in the plot summary context, and none meet WP:SIGCOV (that holds true for the academic sources).

For the record, Blackmore's paper is accessible through LibGen and it contains just one sentence about Sulaco; the book I can only access through snippet view in GBooks (RIP Z-library :( ), but what I see doesn't suggest SIGCOV is met.

I do think the part about etymology (connections between Conrad works and Alien franchise) is merged to Alien (film). I'll ping User:Darkwarriorblak who just got that article to a FA status - I have to say that the omission of any connection to Conrad suggests issues with comprehensiveness of that article (Blackmore's paper is a good read on inspirations of the movie, many of which seem to be missing from the article, not just Conrad's role).

On a final side note, we don't have an article on the arguably more recognizable Nostromo (spaceship) (it was redirected without AfD in 2008; it was just a plot summary - but someone who cares for the franchise might look into whether it's not notable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could support this, each film generally has different crafts, including the Isolation video game and Prometheus. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We would have to prove that this meets either WP:GNG or WP:LISTN first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as a compromise seems reasonable, unless someone can add some non trivial analysis of this entity's significance? -
GizzyCatBella🍁 23:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aliens (film), perhaps specifically to Aliens (film)#Sets and technology - Its role in the plot of the movie is already described completely in the plot summary of the movie, and the information on its design and production is pretty extensively described in the Sets and technology section, making this a somewhat redundant spinout article. While there are a handful of reliable sources included here, they seem to largely be analyses of the film/franchise as a whole, with the Sulaco only being briefly discussed as a part of the wider analysis. That makes its notability as its own distinct topic somewhat iffy, and even then, I would argue that it would be better discussed as part of the main article on the film (which, again, it largely already is) per WP:NOPAGE. If any of the listed reliable sources are not included in the main Aliens (film) article already, they could be moved over, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider option of redirection and, if so, to what target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Unnecessary. Article has been redirected, nobody appears to be challenging it. This discussion does not constitute any sort of consensus, but does not need to remain open. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brightside Roadside

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

Article is about a planned restaurant chain that hasn't opened yet. Many references are included in the article: the vast majority are reprints of a single news release (https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/market/LSE20221107070008_4569826/launch-of-roadside-restaurant-brand-brightside) as can be seen by the identical quotations. Only in-depth articles are about the former Little Chef brand, and none of those articles mention anything about Brightside Roadside. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, in that the references all either meet the examples of trivial coverage, have no coverage at all, or are from corporate news releases. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Sharma (actor)

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

Doesn't have significant roles in multiple notable films. The 1 notable film in which the subject has a significant role is Dunno Y... Na Jaane Kyon. — hako9 (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liteyny bridge, Sestroretsk

edit
Liteyny bridge, Sestroretsk (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 bridge. Possibly a hoax since the coords go to some random houseConcern about it being a hoax was addressed below. No results that are useful on Google or JSTOR. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kannada songs recorded by P. B. Sreenivas

edit
List of Kannada songs recorded by P. B. Sreenivas (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)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:GNG as non notable list. The references are, broadly, useless. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of television episodes

edit
Lists of television 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)

Purpose better served by category, e.g. {{Category:Lists of television series episodes by country}} Indagate (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no information provided that a category couldn’t offer, not to mention unrealistically broad. Dronebogus (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is currently about 24 KB. If the current contents are representative of all television series in the length of the title, it would be about 201 KB when completed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arshia Riaz

edit
Arshia Riaz (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 notability as far as I can tell. No sources written about this individual and the one source listed in the article leads to nowhere. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.Jaguarnik (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on BennyOnTheLoose's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, I can see that there are indeed a few sources about her. However, I don't believe the BBC profile works, it may be a case of WP:ABOUTSELF seeing as she worked at the BBC. Pride of Pakistan uses profiles that are user-submitted, and they do not do independent coverage on the profiles, as said here. (https://www.prideofpakistan.com/who-is-who/arshia%20riaz-1) For the others, I am not saying they are irrelevant. They were years ago, though, and there hasn't really been new coverage on her since then. It's also not a lot of coverage. But I'm not an expert editor, I will wait for the opinions of others. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't find the first source from the Birmingham Post, so it would be hard to use it to improve her article. Jaguarnik (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Birmingham Post article can be found on NewsBank but is quite similar to the Birmingham Evening Mail article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vernate

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

I don't see the point in a disambiguation page containing two links only. It seems easy enough to make the two articles link to each other in the top. If it's a problem of figuring out where the name Vernate should point to, I think the place with the higher population (which happens to be Vernate, Lombardy) should be pointed to. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Sources have been found that show that she fits WP:AUTHOR now. Note to the other voters: when I first found the article and did a search I didn't find many sources but there were more from when a search was done omitting her middle name or with her middle initial. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Lucy Adshead

edit
Gladys Lucy Adshead (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 author who fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. A search via the WP refs search engine only returns a result on WorldCat and a google search returns a bunch of either unrelated results or name drops. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There is some support for converting this article to a redirect although there is a difference of opinion on its target. This can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism in Pakistan

edit
Secularism in Pakistan (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)

Ever since the Republic of Pakistan has come into existence, its an Islamic state. Also, there is no such notable Secularist movement in Pakistan. This poorly written article doesn't cover anything substantial on "Secularism in Pakistan". Dympies (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, that's not an argument based on any known policy. If there are sufficient reliable sources, the topic is notable. The end. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Two-nation theory. I agree this article subscribes WP:OR. Based on fringe ideas of individual scholars, it doesn't deserve a separate space. There are a few people in Pakistan who believe that Pakistan should go back to Mughal dynasty, but that doesn't owe us a "Mughalism in Pakistan" page, even if such individuals get their opinions published in newspapers. Insight 3 (talk)
  • Keep or Redirect to Islam and secularism#Pakistan. Detail opinion: a) Pakistan need not be a secular state to have article on Secularism in Pakistan. b) Pakistan is not SA. Though in very weak form Pakistan always had left leaning politics having (pseudo or disguised?)–secular instincts in some form. c) If we take a look @ google scholar and Pakistan related academic books at least for criticism sake topic of Secularism in Pakistan has been widely enough discussed justifying possibility of encyclopedic coverage, though current status of the wp article is very far from ideal. d) Two nation theory discusses prominence of religious politics, where as concept of Secularism in Pakistan is supposed to discuss Secular instincts and criticism there of in Pakistani polity, IMO in a way that is difference of weightage. Bookku (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku: what exactly is the criteria for having an article on Secularism in XYZ country? You gave an example of SA (Saudi Arabia). Obviously some liberal elements who support a secular democracy exist in SA too. By that logic, we can have an article on Secularism in Saudi Arabia. As per my understanding, we should have Secularism in XYZ country only if: i) its a secular country at present (like India); ii) it was a secular country in past (like Bangladesh); iii) it has no state religion (like Indonesia). Other than these three categories, I don't see any sense in keeping such articles. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it has always been an Islamic state since it made a constitution of its own. So, it should be deleted. Dympies (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar gives 10 page result for "Secularism in Pakistan" (and only 3 results for SA). So academic discourse exists for Pakistan. I suggest priority for RS over perception. Bookku (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku: So if we get 10 results which say "Secularism in Pakistan doesn't exist", are we still going to create an article on subject? We need to discuss this matter at a larger platform as there are too many articles of such type.Dympies (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how one wants to read January , 2013 some liberals held a seminar ‘Democracy and secularism in Pakistan: Its need and importance’, So intermittently discourse happens. In the same seminar some one said ‘Admitting you are a secularist can get you killed in Pakistan' ; The same sensational headline picked up by news paper but fact is seminar could take place peacefully. Ref
discourse is present. Per
WP:Before
you could have discussed AfD proposal first on the article talk page. (Emphasis added) Article can very well be renamed 'Liberal discourse in Pakistan' or 'Secular discourse in Pakistan' or '
Discourse about liberalism and secularism in Pakistan
'.
Bookku (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the topic meets GNG with coverage in multiple scholarly sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and many more. There's serious logical fallacies in the nomination and the arguments to delete: the nature of a government has very little to do with whether there is a movement for secularism. They're akin to saying that since the US is a baseball-playing country, Cricket in the United States should not exist. The content is poorly sourced but not off topic or inaccurate; the article needs fleshing out, but TNT is not justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The problems with definition are acknowledged, but there is consensus that a salvageable list exists here. I encourage all participants attempt to address scope issues via talk page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of car-free places

edit
List of car-free places (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)

First, let me say very clearly I have no objection at all to the concept of 'car-free' areas, and in certain contexts I'm very much in favour of it. But this list is just a mess, which has been pointed out many times on the talk page for years since it was created in 2004 (the creator stopped editing Wikipedia in 2005), and its many issues have never been addressed. I'll outline them here:

  • There is no clear scope to this list, because
    • There is no clear definition of 'carfree/car-free', nor 'place'. Note that the interwiki to French Wikipedia is fr:Liste d'îles sans voiture, that is, "List of islands without car(s)". 'Islands' is a much more restricted scope than 'places'.
    • There is disagreement about whether certain places are really "car-free" or not. Brouillard 2014 excludes Venice (because automobile access is possible via a bridge), even though the lead section of this List with a photo of a square in Venice cites it as a prime example of a large entirely car-free city, while its entry confusingly states: Entire city is completely car-free, except at the bus station square. Meanwhile, Venice is the very first example mentioned under Pedestrian_zone#Car_free_towns,_cities_and_regions: Motor traffic stops at the car park at the head of the viaduct from the mainland, and water transport or walking takes over from there. However, motor vehicles are allowed on the nearby Lido. Meanwhile over at Carfree city#Venice, none of these exceptions are mentioned. For some reason, plenty of texts on English Wikipedia (usually unsourced), as well as some sources outside Wikipedia, want to claim Venice as an example of an "entirely car-free city", but then have to make all kinds of concessions why that is not entirely true.
    • It is unclear whether 'pedestrian zone', 'parking-space-free' (stellplatzfrei) zones, limited-access zones etc. also count as 'car-free', and thus whether they should be included or excluded. Melia et al. 2010 argue that Vauban is stellplatzfrei, which is different from 'car-free' (which they say other sources frequently incorrectly claim): cars are allowed in all these streets, and even though parking on them is not allowed, this rule is sometimes violated and barely enforced.
    • What doesn't help is the fact that the list has adopted a colouring scheme which seems to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The legends of these colours aren't providing the reader with much clarity: [Dark green] Most or all of the area is essentially car-free and [Light green] Large area that is nearly car-free. Both phrases have so many caveats built into them that it just becomes vague rubbish. I read these phrases as two sides of the same coin, akin to saying "This glass is about half-empty" and "This glass is approximately half-full" when you're asked to point out all glasses that are empty; it's simply not a useful answer to the question you were asked and ignores the meaning of empty. These aren't helpful criteria, and I'm pretty sure none of the sources cited uses either of these "definitions" to categorise situations. Either more objective criteria or categories that are commonly used in literature will have to replace this self-invented stuff, or it just needs to go.
  • This list has lacked reliable sources (WP:RS) for most of its claims ever since its creation in 2004.
    • Many of its claims are entirely WP:UNSOURCED.
    • Many of the sources that are used are not RS.
      • Some of these have a very activist/ideological tone (WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV). For example, 7 out of 36 references are carfree.fr, a website stating: CarFree France federates the entire fight against automotive oppression and offers many alternatives in terms of mobility and urban planning.
      • Many of these are travel guide-like sources, some of which also have an activist/ideological/emotional tone to it which is hardly compatible with NPOV. This is especially true for Reference 8, which is currently used 36 times to refer to Brouillard, Etienne (2014). Îles de rêve sans voiture, that is, "Dream Islands Without Car(s)". Page 3 has an emotional story about how cars create a constant pressure... from which it is difficult to escape. Fortunately, vast spaces separated from the rest of the world have been preserved. The "dream islands without cars" do not suffer from the automobile pressure, they place us in the heart of nature in a silence that has become rare, a silence necessary to reconnect to ourselves, our environment and to others.... (goes on for several sentences) It's fine for the author to think so, but that makes this a rather unscholarly source which is not well-suited for an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, when it says "without cars", that's not always true, as the author admits a few lines down: A rule which knows rare exceptions, derogations are sometimes accorded to a physician, to professionals or aged people. Elsewhere, lorries/trucks, ambulances or minibuses can be used for the community. This makes the author's claim that [proving] that a life without cars is possible every day, and accessible for all (which seems to be the book's goal) rather self-defeating.
  • What is even the point or purpose of this list? For example, what added value do the columns Area and Approximate population have? Does it matter? Why are we even talking about this issue in terms of territory and residents?
    • Residents in the area are obviously not the only ones using the public space in question to move around, so why is this relevant to mention? And population is of course a very dynamic statistic, and one which would need to be regularly updated if it were important.
    • And except for the islands, the areas of a city centre, city district, town, municipality that have been designated or could be identified as "car-free" are subject to change, because streets or squares can always be added or removed. This, too, would have to be regularly updated if a city council decided to add a street to the car-free zone. Moreover, how do you even calculate the 'area'? As the square metres of roads/streets/squares etc. where cars are banned? Or does it include all buildings and structures within a given area where cars are banned? In the case of islands, I suppose it includes all dry land between the waters; e.g. Feøy is given a "car-free area" of "1.3 km2". Fun fact: that is the entire island. Not just the streets/roads/squares, but apparently also areas where sheep farming is taking place. Why should that even count? Would we count sheep farming areas on the mainland as "car-free places" (I highly doubt it)? And again, why is this relevant to mention?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I'm getting here is that these columns have been added with the idea in mind that car-free places should expand to include ever more areas and populations, and that the end-goal of car-free places is to encompass the entire planet. These figures thus give an indication of "progress made" by people who have this end-goal. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that (WP:ADVOCACY), nor is that necessarily the goal of pedestrianisation / car-free zoning. In urban planning, it's just a context-dependent solution to a specific problem or set of problems in a specific area, whereby the ultimate goal is not the elimination of car use around the world at all, but that safety, mobility (esp. traffic flow), livability, productivity/wealth etc. in specific areas is improved. Very often, that doesn't mean banning cars entirely, but just redirecting them (usually with ring roads) around urban centres where they don't need to be and cause needless problems. In short, if this list does have an encyclopaedic purpose, it can't be this one. These two columns should be removed at the very least.

So in summary, I think this list is an almost hopeless case. Without a clear scope, definition, reliable sources to enable verification, or appropriate encyclopaedic purpose, this list not only seems to violate the policies and guidelines I mentioned above, but also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The German and French versions also underline this. Its German equivalent, which was based on a translation of the English original, has been moved to the draft space because it "requires a reworking": de:Portal:Transport und Verkehr/Entwürfe/Gebiete ohne Kraftfahrzeugverkehr. The French equivalent has a far more limited scope ("islands"), but apart from "place" faces the same problems with definitions, scope, sourcing and unclear relevance of area and population. I see little chance for salvaging it; if it is even possible to establish a proper scope and definition, restarting from scratch seems far preferable to trying to fix so much barely usable material. I see much more value in expanding Wikipedia's coverage of these concepts with examples and case studies in articles such as pedestrian zone and carfree city (which might be better renamed "carfree development"?). That's much better than this ill-conceived attempt to create an exhaustive list of all examples around the world, when we can't even agree on what we're talking about, and whether case X qualifies for inclusion on the list. I'm not a fan of cars either, but we can't have this POV-like overview that is apparently aimed at documenting milestones in the fight against automotive oppression. That's WP:NOT Wikipedia's job. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I don't think all hope is lost with this article (just yet). Granted, there is always room for improvement, as noted in the nom. However, if a more precise inclusion criteria can be defined, the article's content may be refined to stay within the new criteria's scope. It will take time and effort, but so too will starting from scratch. Call me an optimist, but I still see the merits of trying to improve it as supposed to an outright deletion. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to that possibility, but wouldn't you agree that pedestrian / car-free zones are always context-dependent, and it would still be very difficult to avoid generalisations, OR and SYNTH (I could add WP:LISTCRIT here)? The literature I've read so far (admittedly not a lot yet) acknowledges the many semantic problems of calling certain spaces "car-free" that aren't actually entirely "car-free" (Melia et al. 2010). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've added the Template:Dynamic list to it, because it is evident that the inclusion criteria are unclear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I share some of the concerns, I think this article has the potential to be informative and well-defined. As for the specific points: Venice (the main archipelago, excluding Lido) is entirely car-free with the exception of a very small parking lot accessible through a bridge. This place is not really part of the city proper since nobody lives there as far as I know. Cars are not used to travel around the city, but just to reach its borders. So Venice is a perfect example of a car-free city (and probably the largest example by far, with tens of thousand of permanent residents and even more tourists). I don't think any serious source would dispute this, and I don't see an issue with the image description. On the other hand, I think we need to exclude city centers in general, since I agree that in this case it's generally not clear where to put the border of the car-free area and the rest of the city. I also agree that the different color backgrounds need to go. I propose to leave only the clear examples of car-free places that are well-defined and are completely car-free within these well-defined borders. Obvious examples are all the islands with no cars, but I think that Morocco's medinas may also be other examples of well-defined and completely car-free areas. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ita140188: thanks for your input. If you could help with making this list well-defined, that would be appreciated. Could you help explain what you mean by the "city of Venice"?
    1. The Metropolitan City of Venice (2,467 km²)? If you're excluding Lido, I presume you do not mean this.
    2. The it:Municipalità di Venezia-Murano-Burano (Venezia (historic city)–Murano–Burano; 211,38 km²)? I would take this to mean the "main archipelago", but it includes islands such as Sant'Erasmo, which is not car-free.
    3. "Venice" ("5.17 km²") according to the list? I have no idea what this figure is based on. Perhaps it is the "central group" of islands within the Venetian Lagoon? That still includes Sant'Erasmo, which is not car-free.
    4. Just the six sestieri of the historic centre of Venice (646.8 ha)? If you mean just the six sestieri, I think we would have to disqualify the majority of the area of the Santa Croce (Venice) sestiere, including Tronchetto (or "Isola Nuova", which is indeed uninhabited), Santa Chiara (not sure if this is the official name of the island; based on some satellite images, there do appear to be several residental buildings where people live next to the police station at the Ponte della Libertà), and the island of the Piazzale Roma (not sure what the island's name is, but it is clearly inhabited and full of cars), because they are all accessible by cars and buses.
    Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The area cited of 5.17 km2 (equivalent to 517 ha) is likely just the car-free area of the historical city center (excluding the parking), the part which most people refer to when they talk about Venice. The municipality (comune) of Venice is much larger and includes other localities such as Mestre on the mainland (not car-free). The Metropolitan city of Venice is a completely different thing and is equivalent to the old province of Venice, which includes many other cities and towns and is just an Italian administrative subdivision. Ita140188 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the clarification that 5.17 km2 is the equivalent of 517 ha; for some reason I didn't realise that in my mind (haha). Suddenly it makes sense. If we subtract 517 ha from 646.8 ha (the total area of the 6 sestieri), we get 75.8 ha, which is the majority of the area of Santa Croce (88.57 ha minus the car-free area of Santa Croce (apparently 12.77 ha) equals 75.8 ha, which is apparently the combined surface area of Tronchetto, Santa Chiara and the Piazzale Roma island?). Not sure how this was calculated exactly, but it seems like we've got a match. Now I understand. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the nominator raises important points and a good argument but I don't think the article is beyond repair. I think some pruning and better sourcing is required going forward and I support removal of the area and population columns as these are hard to maintain and the purpose is questionable as the nominator says. Garuda3 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you repair the definition and scope problem? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    defined as an extended area where car access is prohibited or very limited, as in the lead of the article, seems like a reasonable definition though this is why we still need the "notes" section for clarifications. Garuda3 (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but what counts as very limited and what doesn't? For example, one place (an island) may only include emergency service vehicles. My native town only excludes personal cars in 4 streets/squares between 10 p.m. and 12 a.m., and calls that a "pedestrian zone". Vauban, Freiburg has a very loose understanding: car ownership is disincentivised but not banned, and parking in certain streets is not allowed (though often done, and rarely punished). Can we just lump all these very different situations together under the heading of very limited while avoiding WP:SYNTH? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Could someone please clarify the difference between a car-free zone and a Pedestrian zone? One one hand, comparing the introduction section suggests that suggests that pedestrian zones are in urban areas, but "car-free zone" also includes wilderness areas, islands, etc. But then the fact that car-free zone redirects to Pedestrian Zone seems to contradict this.

    Separately, when looking through a few of the sources, I wasn't seeing much in-depth coverage of "car-free zone" as an overall concept. Could someone please identify which sources support that WP:NLIST is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Good question, I also wondered about it in my nomination. So far, the only functional difference I see is that, if we take these terms very strictly, 'car-free zone' seems to imply cycling is permitted (because you're taking cars out, so pedestrians and cyclists stay in), while 'pedestrian zone' seems to imply cycling is not permitted (because you're taking everything except pedestrians out, so that includes cyclists). The problem is that, in practice, cycling is often (partially) allowed even in so-called 'pedestrian' zones, e.g. as I found in Pedestrian zone#Netherlands in certain areas of Rotterdam. Similarly, I can imagine so-called 'car-free zones' which are de facto also 'bike-free'. This question, too, underlines just how quickly we can descend into incorrect/misleading generalisations when theory and practice do not coincide. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. This sure is a complex topic... I am beginning to appreciate why the AFD nomination statement was so long! For example, the links provided by ResonantDistortion below are mostly articles about car-free cities, so if we follow the sources, then a rename to List of car-free cities seems appropriate. But then this comes back to the relationship between "car-free city", "car-free area" and "pedestrian zone", which currently seems as clear as mud. Hopefully some sources with definitions can be unearthed to help get to the bottom of this. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. I have not made this nomination lightly. So far, I find "pedestrian zone" to be the most useful term, because it is often legally defined and enforced in local ordinances of a city or town, including a list of streets/squares, and sometimes exceptions (e.g. bikes, emergency vehicles etc.). On the other hand, a "car-free city" seems like a holy grail that lots of people (especially in the car-free movement) are searching for, but never seem to be quite able to find, only approximations with caveats here and there concerning a designated set of streets and squares in a city's centre (which, in practice, are often called "pedestrian zones", or stellplatzfrei, or "limited-access zones", rather than "car-free"). As Ita140188 argued above, city centre is not the same as city, but which areas should be designated "city" is often open to question and confusion. Alternately, we could go for the frwiki solution and limit ourselves to (the entire surface area of) islands to avoid those semantic problems, but that would still remain a dubious categorisation for all sorts of reasons I have pointed out (sheep farming areas and such). Lumping this all together under the vague heading of "places" seems obvious WP:SYNTH to me. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That the article itself has issues (as per the nom) may be obvious but is not relevant to AfD: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. To meet WP:NLIST the concept of listing the items in a group must be substantiated by secondary sources (whether referenced or not). As a quick first review - there are articles out there which either list or compare: list of 14 car free cites, car free zones in London to be 'one of the largest', list of 7 car free cities, Several examples of car free areas given in article. ResonantDistortion 00:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOW WP:REALWORLD. This article has been misleading and misinforming people for 18 years out of Wikipedia's 21 years of existence. Nobody has bothered, or effectively attempted, to fix this article for 18 years, despite many calls for it, and several failed attempts at starting a discussion on the talk page. I, too, was actually trying to fix it before I found a boatload more reasons to get rid of it than to try and salvage it anymore. That's how I arrived at this AfD. If someone does know of a way to fix it, let them please say so explicitly, not just suggest that some day in perhaps yet another 18 years a purpose for this list might be found by some guy somewhere someday maybe. I think our readers are entitled to more quality than us keeping rubbish with very low potential lying around live in our mainspace for almost two decades. (We could follow the example of German Wikipedia and draftify it if anyone wants to have it).
    Secondly, the fact that the term "car-free" is used in many secondary sources doesn't mean it is a coherent concept, let alone that there is consensus about what it means, if it differs from "pedestrian zone" or not, and whether it can/should be applied to "city", "place", "island", "zone", "area" etc. As I have attempted to demonstrate in my nomination, the sources used are not compatible, but widely contradictory on what we're really talking about. Pretending they're all saying the same thing violates WP:SYNTH.
    Thirdly, it looks like some of the sources you mention here are not RS. Wired is, but that article about "Car-Free Cities" has its own problems, such as never really defining the term. The only precise term mentioned is something else: “low-traffic neighborhoods”—or LTNs. Every time "car-free (city)" is mentioned in this article (Oslo, London, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Ljubljana, Helsinki, and Barcelona), it's never about an entire city, and usually not a complete ban on cars in even selected parts of the city. Similarly, the Intelligent Transport source points out that "car-free" can also mean Some streets will be converted to walking and cycling only, with others restricted to all traffic apart from buses, as part of the Mayor’s latest bold Streetspace measures. Access for emergency services and disabled people will be maintained, but deliveries on some streets may need to be made outside of congestion charging hours. Unless I don't understand the words "car" or "-free", I think this shows that a great deal of liberty is taken with this concept to include situations in which lots of cars or other motor vehicles are still pretty much allowed to drive in a certain street as long as they are of a certain type, have a certain purpose, or are there at a certain time. That's a whole lot of exceptions on the claim of being "car-free".
    The fact that some websites on the Internet of varying quality have arbitrary lists lumping together a bunch of so-called "car-free cities" that turn out not to be quite-so-really-actually-completely-entirely-totally-car-"free" doesn't mean Wikipedia also needs to have one. We do have our standards. If we keep such poorly defined, arbitrarily put together, badly sourced lists around, I'm afraid we're setting a very bad example of what is acceptable as encyclopaedic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personall I wouldn't count buses or emergancy services as cars. I also think maintaining limited access for disabled people can still fit within the broader definition of "car free" Garuda3 (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems plausible, but we would need reliable sources to support such a "broader definition of "car free"". We can't just make it up as we go along. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question As nom I'm glad everyone acknowledges various issues I have pointed out with this list, but in turn, I also acknowledge that so far everyone thinks these are fixable in some way. Perhaps WP:SPLITTING is a good alternative? Most of my objections seem to ultimately stem from the fact that too many different things are lumped together under the headings of "car-free" and "places" in ways that are inappropriate and in violation of various policies and guidelines, so unweaving them might just be the solution. I was thinking about the following:
  1. List of populated car-free islands as the English equivalent to fr:Liste d'îles sans voiture. Each entry must have a reliable source stating that said populated island is de jure car-free by deliberate choice/design/political decision, so we won't go around listing all islands that are de facto car-free because nobody lives there in the first place, or it's just one guy and his kayak or something living there. There is no need to list the area or population; that can all be checked in the main article of the island in question.
  2. List of pedestrian zones (currently a redirect to List of car-free places). This must be strictly based on a local law/ordinance (by the city council/govt/mayor etc.) de jure designating a certain area of a city as a "pedestrian zone" or equivalent (pedestrian precincts, pedestrian malls, pedestrianised area etc.), not just "car-free zone" or "auto-free zone" (which we agree are usually poorly defined concepts, and it seems to me that they are rarely defined as such in law; it's mostly what you see news media articles talking about). There seems to be broad consensus that there can be some exceptions to this rule that pedestrian zones are only for the use of pedestrians, such as cycling (very often allowed, but not always), emergency services or transport for disabled people (frequently cited), but not personal/private cars/vans, delivery vehicles, trucks/lorries and the like. These exceptions should be stated in the Notes section of each entry. When relevant, this could include an indication of how much (area) of the given city has been pedestrianised to avoid the impression that the entire city is "car-free" (see the Venice example above, where area size turned out to be useful for understanding what we're talking about). Cases of de facto pedestrian zones will not count, because then we get into the grey area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations. Verified and RS-cited examples of pedestrian zones can be moved from the current List of car-free places, articles such as Pedestrian zone#Examples, Pedestrian zone#By region and country, Carfree city#Examples, Pedestrian village.
  3. Ban on on-street parking. I think this should be a separate standalone article on this concept, because now it is subsumed in other articles about other things. It's really a separate phenomenon. Just because you can't park your car in some streets doesn't mean the entire city is suddenly "car-free", that is such an unwarranted stretch (as Melia et al. 2010 said about Vauban, Freiburg). I don't think it makes much sense to start an entire list of places where on-street parking is banned, though mentioning a few examples is certainly quite helpful. But the theoretical concept really deserves its own page.
  4. something like limited-access zone / low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN): I'm not sure what material remains once we have split off these three lists/articles, but I would suspect that these kinds of zones are what were are left with: urban areas which are not islands, nor pedestrian zones, nor no-parking areas, where cars are allowed but only within well-defined legal limits. Again, cases of de facto sort-of-car-free-zones-but-not-really will not count, because then we get into the grey area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations. Verified and RS-cited examples of these zones can be moved from current articles and lists such as those mentioned above.
Would this be a viable alternative to keeping the current list (full of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations)? I'd love to hear your perspectives. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Doctor Who (2022 specials)#Soundtrack. Anyone is free to merge any content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack)

edit
Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) (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)

Have attempted to prompt improvement in the article through tagging and redirection. Would have draftified it, but that seems pointless since the article's creator seems unwilling to put effort into the article. Current sourcing and searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor_Who_(2022_specials)#Soundtrack as it was upon creation. No reliable coverage found. Current sourcing is just a tweet and a sales site. QuietHere (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Clear consensus against a standalone article, marginal consensus against a redirect given the search term issue mentioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John ? (MP for City of York)

edit
John ? (MP for City of York) (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 redirected this to City of York (UK Parliament constituency)#1265-1660 , but was reverted. Nothing is known about this person, not even his surname. Fram (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Fram (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a referenced article on a Member of Parliament, meeting WP:NPOL. We know when he served, who with, and that he served. There often isn't much more known when we are going back 700 years, but he meets our notability guidelines, and is still being written about - even though very little of the records about him have survived - 700 years later. There may be a little more to add - this article is less than an hour old. However, even if no more is added, all MPs are accepted as notable and this ahs a relaible source. Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is in the article that isn't in the redirect target? It makes no sense to have a separate article which just duplicates already present into. NPOL is a "presumed" notability which should probably be revisited, just like we did with NSPORTS, to make it clear that we still need some indepth coverage, not just a "some man named John was elected in year X". Claiming that he is "still being written about" seems quite a stretch, he is listed in a table and that's it. Fram (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding revising NPOL, this VP thread, started not long after the NSPORTS decision, may be of interest. Curbon7 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he meets notability requirements, but the lack of sources isn't enough to keep it. GNG isn't met and I don't think we'll find much if they haven't turned up in the last 699 years. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One good source is fine for someone who died so long ago - as you say, he meets notability requirements. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the full content of that "one good source", that shows that he is "still being written about", is this:
1394 JOHN...
That's it, yeah? The full sources about this John? Fram (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting the requirements simply means (to me anyway) that it's ok to make an article for him, not that he absolutely has to have one. We still need sourcing for GNG or even BASIC, otherwise, it's pointless. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects who pass WP:NPOL do not have to demonstrate that they pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have to demonstrate that they pass WP:PAGEDECIDE, which he does not. Avilich (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough with that point, but I was talking about GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Little is known about the guy, therefore - until or unless - someone does some off-wiki research to find out some more details, there's nothing to say and no point in having a page. JMWt (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. There is a very strong but rebuttable presumption that UK MPs are notable, and this seems to be one of the rare exceptions where it can be rebutted. History of Parliament generally provides quite detailed entries researched in a variety of primary and secondary sources, even for early MPs whose identity is not entirely certain. Those constitute SIGCOV, but a case like this, where there is no biographical article but only a list entry, seems to me much closer to a "trivial mention". Redirecting to the list entry would be consistent with John's treatment in History of Parliament and should new evidence ever arise to establish his identity this could, of course, be revisited. Choess (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Scrapes by WP:NPOL, but "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". Since the coverage of John is virtually nonexistent, the best course of action here is to follow WP:NOPAGE and cover the topic in a broader article which gives it context. A redirect is not suitable since the title is an unlikely search term. Avilich (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a few issues here - for instance it could be argued that being a member of parliament in the 14th century was a lot less significant than today and thus does not make the subject automatically notable enough to have an article, although not everyone would take that view. Leaving that aside it is clear a) This individual is not the subject of significant extant coverage, which does bring his notability into question, b) there is not enough known about this individual for there to be a separate article about him. While it is right Wikipedia records that he was a member of parliament, City of York (UK Parliament constituency) does this adequately, though perhaps it might be worth adding a note that that his surname is unknown and nothing further is currently known about him. I am not strongly opposed to a redirect, but I suspect few people are likely to search for the specific title of the article, so am not sure how useful it would be. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Keep: As a member of parliament, the subject meets WP:NPOL. As far as I'm aware, judging from what someone else said in a recent AfD, an article on an NPOL#1-passing politician hasn't been deleted in a long time, if ever. Consensus has always been strong when it comes to this tenant of NPOL. I understand the point Fram is making, and they and Choess make a very strong argument, but this really opens the floodgates, particularly with comments like "NPOL is a "presumed" notability which should probably be revisited, just like we did with NSPORTS". Though obviously I am very supportive of NPOL, I am not opposed to having a community-wide discussion about it; however, we should not be litigating a decade-and-a-half of consensus at a random AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." They alternatively need to be "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (albeit for historical figures, showing they were important is equivalent 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just see, does John meet the criterias? : does he have "multiple published secondary sources" mentioning him? Nope, only a database entry, he just failed that test. Then, has he received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several time? Not that we know, he just failed another test. Then, has he made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field? Not that we know, he just failed another test. Then, does he have an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)? Again, not that we know, with that he has failed every criteria I could find, if you could find a second source that mentions what he did in parliament, or a better source that say, mentions that he was a minister, or close to the king, or that he had sex with the king's brother's daughter, anything at all will do, please I'd rather not lose the page, but we shouldn't be litigating 15 years of precedent to protect a random page 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Complete logical fallacy that has virtually nothing to do with what I typed. Nice selective reading by the way: we are talking about the first bulletpoint in WP:NPOL, not the second; the local tenant applies to people like mayors, so it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Show a little respect and don't treat others like idiots. Curbon7 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Congrats on YOUR selective reading, I never claimed that you were an idiot, don't put words in my mouth. If you could point out which logical fallacy I have used, I'd love to know. I was talking about BOTH bulletpoints (and the text that follows them), but if you want to do selective reading and ignore the "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability" bit, please do! Just don't claim that I'm the one doing selective reading when you do so. Can you just find another source that mentions one of the following? A)legislation he pushed for B)personal life details C)important (locally or otherwise) actions he took
    If not, then you're admitting you have nothing but a name and a job description, which ain't much to go off of. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I disagree with the idea that this "opens the floodgates". The community has made it clear that notability is ultimately founded on the ability to locate significant external coverage (although what that constitutes will vary a great deal between different types of subject matter). No entity is guaranteed notability solely based on its membership within a group. I think NCPOL is generally a good SNG (at least for British figures), but as someone interested in and knowledgeable about the subject, I also think it's important to be honest about cases like this, where there's no chance at present of creating a substantive article. The people trying to launder WP:IDONTLIKEIT through specious policy arguments are going to do so regardless, but honest brokers will respond positively to people who know about the subject matter but can still regard it dispassionately. Choess (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say floodgates, I just mean I can see a possibility that this will be used as a precedent for deleting other articles with a lot more merit, particularly with regard to modern and non-western figures, where coverage is virtually guaranteed even if we don't have easy access to it. I find Avilich's argument regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE to be incredibly convincing, but can't find myself able to !vote anything other than keep due to the implications. Curbon7 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "implications" or "floodgates", since policy dictates that a local consensus cannot override global consensus. Nobody is even arguing for the removal of content: the only thing at stake here is whether the reader of City of York (UK Parliament constituency)#1265-1660 will have a few seconds of his time wasted by being taken to an article which adds no new information. Given that this is possibly the single least covered politician in wikipedia, "other articles with a lot more merit" will encompass just about everything else, so it's very unlikely that any specific group will be targeted in any way. Avilich (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote, as my concerns have been sufficiently sated. Big thank you to Avilich and Choess. Curbon7 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorma Katrama

edit
Jorma Katrama (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:NBIO. Sarrail (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Complex/Rational 14:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Müge Göçek

edit
Fatma Müge Göçek (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)

Professor at the University of Michigan that does not have any notable works. It appears as if her only claim to notability is her being a signatory to the I Apologize campaign, but it seems that there were non-notable people that also have this claim. I do not think that this individual is a notable academic.Spiralwidget (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision (disambiguation)

edit
Circumcision (disambiguation) (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 dab page enumerates types of circumcision (like Khitan (circumcision)) and lists articles covering one or another aspect of the topic (like Ethics of circumcision). None of these are valid entries: dab pages exist to provide navigation to article topics that may be referred to by the same term, not to list the subtopics of a single unambiguously named topic. Navigation to those subtopics should instead happen from within the main article (either in the text, or from a See also section at the end). – Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte York Goldenblatt

edit
Charlotte York Goldenblatt (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)

Fictional character, pure plot summary, mostly unreferenced (few references that exist are to the TV shop episodes). I've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." User:Liz deprodded it with "his is a main character of an extremely popular American TV show. I think WP:AFD is more appropriate so the deletion sorting can inform the relevant WikiProjects." Fair enough, let's discuss and see if anyone can find sources or arguments to salvage this. If not, the best WP:ATD I can think of is soft redirect to List of Sex and the City characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. MARKLE, G. “Can Women Have Sex Like a Man?”: Sexual Scripts in Sex and the City. Sexuality & Culture, [s. l.], v. 12, n. 1, p. 45–57, 2008. DOI 10.1007/s12119-007-9019-1. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=31141837&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2022.
  2. BRASFIELD, R. Rereading: Sex and the City: Exposing the Hegemonic Feminist Narrative. Journal of Popular Film & Television, [s. l.], v. 34, n. 3, p. 130–139, 2006. DOI 10.3200/JPFT.34.3.130-139. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24660428&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2022.
There are dozens of mentions of the character in the two above each CT55555(talk) 23:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first article has some discussion of her sex life, but I don't think it meets WP:SIGCOV, she is not the main topic of the article, she is just one of the cases studied. Second one is similar. Most of the mentions are plot summaries, and what little analysis is limited to her sexual preferences and activities. I am not seeing how this can be used to save this article, although arguably the soruces could be used to add some context about the characters, errr, sexual activities to their short description in a list of characters I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is mentioned 21 times in the first link and 33 in the second. To me this clearly meets the normal definition of significant coverage. Plus there are all the other academic sources that can be found on the Wikipedia library. This important quote from WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I think rejects your implication that she needs to be the main topic and surely dozens of mentions is "more than a trivial mention". CT55555(talk) 13:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens of trivial mentions can't be added into significant coverage. What we need is at least a single paragraph, preferably several, of non-plot analysis. We don't have that. Cited sources mention her dozens of times, in the context of dozens of plot points. That's not enough. As for other sources, well, WP:GOOGLETEST. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Radagast13, you only have one other edit from this past year, I'm curious what prompted you to weigh in on this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I don't want to speak for Radagast, but he is active on Polish Wikipedia in deletion discussions on fiction topics, and this article is currently nominated for AfD there as well. And it's good for folks to offer their expertise in multiple projects, I am active in both English and Polish AfDs. Just my two cents. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filling me in, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Can I express surprise that there is an article about a character on an American TV series from the 2000s on the Polish Wikipedia? I guess they aired the program there as well. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz American or English in general (Doctor Who, etc.) pop culture is globally popular, many such articles have numerous interwikis, although n 99% cases they are weaker than what we have here. Most stuff on pl wiki is sadly just a plot summary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I'm somehow involved at Polish AfD, mostly advocating for deletion of some minor TV and anime characters. Usually when we delete an article about some supporting character (90% of decisions in this particular field are for deletion) I don't bother enwiki. This time I made an exception, as articles were similar (they often are) and the same arguments should apply. If it's somehow not welcome - tell me. I'm thinking of doing it again, but only in this very limited field. My view is that we should concentrate efforts on lists, and merge individual articles about less important characters. Radagast13 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, I'm not offering any evidence of notability here. I just wanted to weigh in, even if my opinion will be discounted. I'm kind of busy on the project and I don't have time to do the necessary research for this particular AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I wouldn't object to a redirect until someone is able to flesh out the existing content. I was able to review the second of the sources above, and while it's not wonderful, there's substantive character analysis in it. I also found this, which is explicitly about this character. That's already two sources, plus the first above that I haven't evaluated. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I similarly wouldn't mind much if the page was redirected in the interim. One of the four primary characters in an enormously influential franchise where all four characters were constantly and deeply engaged with each other's (fictional) lives. This isn't like somebody was trying to fill a redlink on a template. This would be like deleting one of the Justice League member articles because one isn't up to snuff yet. No disagreement with the nominator's statement or rationale; they are quite correct that directly detailing sources are not present but based on links presented in this process, there's every reason to expect such detailing will be found and applied. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (against my expectations) - I note the sources above. Book sources include Reading Sex and the city (over 40 index entries for "Charlotte York"); Sex and the city : kiss and tell (has a several-page chapter on the character); Sarah Jessica Parker, glam' in the city : biographie (3 pages specifically on the character); Sex and the city 2 : the stories, the fashion, the adventure (single page about the character specifically); and some commentary in The essential HBO reader. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but TNT and rewrite. Needs sources for confirmation of statements, rather than a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - doubt I would be able to add any extra sources but a definite keep from me GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would be curious how much the current title throws off searches. The character is far more well-known as Charlotte York, than her married name later in the series. To add to the sources provided above, there is Charlotte Chooses Her Choice: Liberal Feminism on Sex and the City and Jewish Performativity on Sex and the City. Both of these sources focus on York, but I do not think articles or sources that are more general about the series as a whole should not be discounted if York is a significant point of analysis. The article needs to be re-written but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Aoba47 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47 If this is kept, which is not unlikely, do you think we should move the article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support that move as I think Charlotte York is the WP:Common name for the character. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. IMO the two refs CT55555 provided are SIGCOV (I personally believe the analysis in the first ref here is decently detailed, and has some Content analysis and some critical commentary instead of pure plot recounting, e.g., The characters Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha, do not appear as role models, but as symbolic representations of ‘‘female subject positions’’, whom viewers can emulate in fantasy (Ang 1990) so IMHO probably meets WP:SIGCOV), second ref is borderline (most is plot overview but has some commentary, e.g. Writers of this episode make clear that Charlotte’s quest is to discern Stephen’s sexual orientation in the face of questionable masculinity. We do not read the story as Charlotte’s inability to accept that Stephen is heterosexual, or not gay. Viewers are also discouraged from interpreting “Evolution” as Charlotte’s exploration of Stephen’s gender identity, which is what seems to be the purpose of the story line. Instead, Sex and the City opts for a mundane discussion of an evolutionary phenenomenon... is somewhat direct in-depth coverage. Similarly, 1, 2 appear to be SIGCOV as well. However, it is the case that the current article is entirely a plot summary and unencyclopedically written, so if WP:TNT is necessary, given this being a plausible search term because of its high pageviews, I could support redirect to List of Sex and the City characters or Sex and the City#Charlotte York as a temporary WP:ATD but definitely not outright deletion. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner

edit
The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While very well written and sourced, none of the sources actually discuss the topic of the article. Rather, this WP editor has created an article which is full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, based upon those sources. Fails WP:GNG, also the SYNTH and OR issues. Onel5969 TT me 12:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - someone needs a blog or a newspaper column; this is not encyclopedic content. JMWt (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Churchill and Milner clearly had an interesting relationship, but I would claim that Churchill had similar relationships with many other individuals in his life. I think that very few of them warrant their own article, and all of the content in this article is either covered in the subject's pages (i.e. experience working in the press, Milner's attendence at Doullens) or not notable enough to justify an article on them specifically (i.e. Churchill's comments on Milner's book.)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the two are suitable comparisons, because they were both very important to saving the life of England. Lord Milner (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be argued that Haig, Jellicoe, Beatty, Lloyd George, Turing, Chamberlain, Attlee, Lawrence of Arabia, Churchill, Milner, etc were very important to saving the 'life of England'. Do you plan on writing an article comparing and exploring the relationships between each of them? Already that is 10! Articles. Likely you would be writing thousands of articles which would then need to be maintained. This is an essay rather than an article, and it is not neutral because the entire premise of the article is to justify the article's own existance (i.e. find any connection between Churchill and Milner possible to make it appear that they had a notable enough relationship to warrant an article). I understand that the sources are all reliable, but you also do come to speculative conclusions within the article, for example that Churchill was Milner's Protoge, or that the two had feuds or such. It is a good essay and well-written, but this is not the place in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear case of OR. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Although I am not an expert writer, I have not consciously or unconsciously WP:SYNTH'd (synthesized, melded, or added made up conclusions) to any sentence. This is a unique topic, similar to Public Oversight (United States) in my sandbox, but that does not make it original research. On OR, Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." This I have done with every sentence. On SYTH, it says, Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. On this, I studiously avoiding drawing any conclusions, except perhaps in the first paragraph, where I compared WC's speech with that of Foch's, but even here, the conclusion comes from a book author, who is properly quoted. I did add one word descriptions at the opening of every paragraph, but for this I hope I can be forgiven, because I just wanted to liven up an otherwise extremely dull subject. I also have a picture of Winston Churchill (last one, bottom left) with a sour puss, but it is not my preferred one. There is a picture of Winston walking to work on budget day (the day the 1924 budget was due) alongside his daughter, Diana. That is the one I would like to add, but it is very hard to find given UK copywrite restrictions. So I ask that the editors take a clearer view of Wikipedia's guidelines, and to not become curlicue screwed.👍 Lord Milner (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is WP:SYNTH, and not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While a lot of work has obviously gone in to this and I hope it can find a home somewhere, this is not a Wikipedia article. There is original research and generally the relationships between two individuals are not going to be notable enough to need there own article and this is not an exception. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but this is simply not encyclopaedic for the reasons stated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition I have for encyclopedia follows...
    A book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.
    Example: "if you're not familiar with a concept or topic, consult an encyclopedia"
    ...so, the more, the merrier, and we are not limited by finite space. This is what makes wikipedia a better source than Encyclopedia Brittanica. Please, don't be so conservative. Lord Milner (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is nothing compared to "Lord Milner's Life Timeline", in my sandbox: 900 bullet points backed up by 1,500 footnotes that would remain invisible in Wikipedia unless it is needed by someone, in which case they would be very happy indeed. Articles like these complete the missing pieces of the Wikipedia globe you see in the upper left hand corner of your screen, which I equate to everything missing by a conventional encyclopedia. Again, my interest in Lord Milner is because he was a very important figure in Prime Minister David Lloyd George's War Cabinet, not because of a personal connection. Peace. Lord Milner (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There are no arguments being made here that this channel has substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that's all that counts under our guidelines. Sandstein 08:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suno TV

edit
Suno TV (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 new Pakistani TV channel has no references that demonstrate it meets the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Although it is a newly launched TV channel, with some primary and unreliable sources, but according to Wikipedia TV stations may be provisionally notable in reference to their respective official license provider (in this case, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority PEMRA) which I have now added as reference. So I am updating the article from time to time and whenever there are references to some independent and reliable sources I will add them.M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response on this. A broadcast license is not a golden ticket, but it helps. It's also worth noting that in India/Pakistan, licenses are required to distribute any television service, not just over-the-air transmissions (this is a difference from the North American use). There are non-notable broadcast stations out there. TV channels aren't born with notability from the moment they hit the air; they earn it by coverage in reliable sources. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BROADCAST. The PEMRA license merely indicates that the news channel exists. There is not a single source that can suggest its notability. The source Mediaspring PK cited twice is a blog site, hence not reliable. The rest are promotional or primary sources. Insight 3 (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Insight 3, The PEMRA license indicates its provisional notability, not for a longer time as Wikipedia said as it is a new channel and you can't find any secondary and reliable sources quickly when the channel is almost 2 month old. And for other sources, I have explained well before. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's relatively new but PEMRA-licensed channel with a significant viewership and following on social media. Also in Pakistan it's very rare for media channels to have coverage on rival media unless there's some controversy. So we can't expect much coverage from those sources anytime soon. The channel otherwise is very much notable and deserve an article. Muneebll (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing notable found. Licensing documents are not useful for GNG, beyond proving the station exists. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a newly launched satellite that deserves coverage, being a citizen of the country, I've been witnessing the advertisement and promotion, shows being onaired that deserves coverage and should remain published.Lillyput4455 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neako

edit
Neako (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. The sources cited mention his name, but little else. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RevFin

edit
RevFin (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)

All sources are drived from PR Material. Non-notable company with no independent coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia (1811 ship)

edit
Caledonia (1811 ship) (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 found of any notability for this ship. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Caledonia_(ship) article summarises a surprising number of ships of this name in the early 19th century. The present article on this captured ship adds Register information on its operation under this name between 1811 and 1821, but while some significant research effort has clearly gone into distilling such information, does it do any more than describe a commercial ship which was going about its business? I am not seeing specific notability or wider implications of its operation. That said, there have been a number of recent AfDs on individual ships of that era; I wonder if a wider discussion is needed, for example on whether articles on the ownership and operation of those ships which were involved in trading people are more notable than those trading goods? AllyD (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything in the newspaper archive from 1810-1820 which suggests to me that either a) it wasn't sailing under the name Caledonia (which would maybe make sense as there was a contemporaneous naval ship [HMS Caledonia (1807)]) or b) it just wasn't that important. On balance without seeing a good reason why it is notable, I'd say delete. JMWt (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to LA Knight. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Male Models

edit
Maximum Male Models (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 been in the NPP queue for months. Various reviewers have tagged it or redirected it but these moves have been objected to. The subject doesn’t look notable to me but I generally avoid sports topics. I’m just tired of seeing it in the queue so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Am More Than My Hair

edit
I Am More Than My Hair (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)

Minor documentary style photography book that is currently cited from non-independent sources. My WP:BEFORE found databases and minor blogs e.g., this but I could not find anything indicating that WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG, or WP:NFILM are met. Update: thanks for the reference linked, though I personally would disagree that it would count towards notability as per my reply below, but if more sources are found do ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources, the ones given above are somewhat ok, but not enough for GNG I think. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animals in Planet Zoo

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

Not nearly enough here to be a stand-alone list. Could be merged into Planet Zoo. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no indication of notability, or reversely obviously not notable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this could’ve just been PRODed Dronebogus (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely should've just done that... sorry echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Animal Airport. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animal Airport Episodes

edit
List of Animal Airport 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)

No sources cited, very few sources online to meet WP:GNG for even an article about the series, let alone a list of episodes. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two episodes listed, one with no information. There is no point in keeping this. Dronebogus (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fooled By Nature

edit
Fooled By Nature (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)

Minor TV series, completely unsourced, my WP:BEFORE search found a single review insufficient to meet WP:GNG, otherwise all refs I found are trivial e.g., this. Moreover, this is a synopsis-only article with little prose but only an unencyclopedic, overlong episodes recap, and even if this is notable most of the article content needs WP:TNT. VickKiang (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lingfeng Hill

edit
Lingfeng Hill (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. The only sources when Googlin' it up are just mirror sites of Wikipedia. How many are mirrored-Wikipedia sites are there...? Sarrail (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Notable" for plum blossoms the only sources I'm finding are mentions on larger lists of things to see in Hangzhou City in early spring. The single source it cites is a dead link. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Jasap (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — another possibility might be to redirect to Yuquan Campus, Zhejiang University, if the hill is really "part of" that campus. The article Zhejiang Institute of Modern Physics looks like a candidate for merger into the university it's part of, as well. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find significant coverage of a "灵峰山" in the Hangzhou area (see below), but it is not the Lingfeng Hill described in the article:
Sources of the other "灵峰山"
  • "灵峰山风景资源的生态特性与生态旅游发展" [Ecological characteristics and eco-tourism development of scenic resource for mount Lingfeng] (PDF). Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College (2). Zhejiang A & F University. 2000.
  • "葛洪隐居灵峰山" [Ge Hong lived in seclusion in Lingfeng Mountain]. 风景名胜 [Famous tourist sites]. No. 8. Hangzhou Daily Press Group [zh]. 1998. p. 17.
  • "浙江宁波北仑灵峰禅寺旧址考古调查简报" [A Brief Archaeological Survey of the Former Site of Lingfeng Temple in Beilun, Ningbo, Zhejiang]. 南方文物 [Southern Heritage] (3). Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology: 37-39. 2013.
Jumpytoo Talk 03:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ronald Malfi. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VEER (band)

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

PROD by Alalch E. (talk · contribs) declined. Their concern was "Non-notable band with some circulation on underground and internet radio and winner of the non-major "Maryland Music Awards"; coverage based mostly on interviews and some other sources for which it is hard to determine reliability, but it is not particularly in depth anyway. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND." LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 03:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The consensus is clear that this article should be Kept with only the nominator arguing that it is unsuitable for the project. Maybe this should be the last time this article is brought to AFD as it has been Kept every time it's been nominated. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing customer codes

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Boeing customer codes (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:LISTN. Specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is basically what this is, a directory of customer codes from Boeing. If they're notable for the incident a plane is in or if they would cause confusion if they weren't there then they can simply be noted in a footnote or mentioned. It also fails things described at WP:SAL. WP:SALAT states this, "A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out." this is really only of interest to plane nerds or business people. It would only be interesting to most people if a plane is called something other than what they were expecting because it's a customer code. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see any convincing arguments for deletion. The 2014 AfD claimed that the topic failed WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but consensus at the time was that it did not. I think it's safe to say that the large number of "plane nerds" qualify as a "reasonable number of readers". As a plane spotter myself, I have used this article numerous times to help identify Boeing aircraft which pass through my local airport. - ZLEA T\C 02:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the average reader is not a plane nerd and that compared to the rest of readers on Wikipedia, plane nerds are a minority. Also you've pointed out the exact issue with the article: It's really only useful to plane spotters. And Boeing literally has a website that's basically a duplicate of this list. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that WP:SALAT uses "reasonable number of readers" and not "majority of readers". Most Wikipedia lists, or even articles in general, would not be of interest to a majority of readers anyway. Plane spotting is a very large hobby, with plane spotters all over the world. If plane spotters alone do not constitute a "reasonable number of readers", then perhaps most lists on Wikipedia should be deleted. - ZLEA T\C 16:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most lists are useful to more than just a specific niche of people. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most niches of people aren't large, globe-spanning hobbies. - ZLEA T\C 16:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basen Murmu

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

No evidence of notability. Of the sources currently in the article, two are from Youtube and two more are dead links. I can't find any other reliable sources online. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helobiae

edit
Helobiae (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)

Invalid taxa do not typically receive their own articles. WP:NBIOL doesn't really go into specifics about this, but it seems reasonable based on the general WP:N guidelines to say that this doesn't need to be a separate article, as the topic can simply be briefly mentioned on the articles of former members of this outdated grouping. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Jones (footballer, born 1980)

edit
Ian Jones (footballer, born 1980) (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:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. The common name could also be impeding finding sources, if someone else wanted to take a look. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Someone should try to find out whether these sources exist or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Cerfontyne

edit
Nicola Cerfontyne (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)

Has no final appearance at any bwf sanctioned senior tournament, nor is a very famous coach, but is a twice national champion. Fails WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. zoglophie 15:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


keep Wikipedia:Notability (sports) She is twice gold medalist at English National Championships so meets notability under number 3. Quote = 3 Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics.Racingmanager (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete. Ultimately it's the GNG that matters most in these sorts of discussions, as WP:NSPORTS itself makes clear. At minimum we need one source providing significant coverage (see proposal 5 from the 2022 RfC), and I'm not seeing that at the moment: after checking Google, ProQuest, the Wikipedia Library, etc., the best source I can find is this article in the local newspaper, which I think is too brief to count as sigcov; other sources are just passing mentions. Happy to reconsider if there's coverage I'm missing, but otherwise I don't think she's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - over 60 matches in NewsBank from 2002 to 2017. Whilst most of these are routine coverage or passing mentions, and they are mainly from local publications, there are some additional biographical details mentioned in some of the articles. I think that cumulatively they provide enough evidence of notability and material to support an article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist: none of the arguments here seem particularly illustrative. It would be more helpful if actual sources were linked by keep supporters, rather than being merely alluded to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Racingmanager and BennyOnTheLoose Stvbastian (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McCarthy (DJ)

edit
Frank McCarthy (DJ) (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:NBIO. Quick Google search found no hits, only one is an unrelated "Frank McCarthy" who is selling his business. Other than that, nothin' else. Sarrail (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator, not notable. CT55555(talk) 00:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, I agree.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable, independent coverage of note. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_16&oldid=1129166983"