Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 13

< January 12 January 14 >

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! 23:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Wit, Wisdom, and Written Characters

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

No indication of notability. The only source in the article, AbeBooks, is not an acceptable reliable source. A Google search found no sources. Google Books and Google Scholar dig up some results, but they are only references or short mentions. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla (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 doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST - grouping lacks coverage in independent sources, topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article states, "list of programming", and Wikipedia is not a TV guide.
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomar Khola Hawa

Tomar Khola Hawa (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE announcements of the upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nilpriyo Could you please be more respectful to other editors, and follow WP:CIVIL? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be true: no offence taken, as I did not understood what he was saying. I think WP:CIR is also an issue here. The Banner talk 10:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • MrsSnoozyTurtle Again, what are you seeing here as rudeness or disrespect? I edit Wikipedia politely WP:CIVIL. I respect all editors enough. Please come to my talk page for these discussions. Nilpriyo 9:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Nilpriyo, what do you mean by "again"?
Maybe I misinterpreted your tone, but your reply to The Banner of "You better talk with sources" seemed quite surly. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Vanchiyankulam. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanchiyankulam Mavilankeni

Vanchiyankulam Mavilankeni (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 looked for some sources and the added source is all I found. The rest is wikipedia, likely some of its derivatives and weather reports. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sil Peruyera Brook

Sil Peruyera Brook (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)

Source search and included sources do not indicate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Was previously drafted for notability and BLP sourcing concerns. ASUKITE 21:23, 30 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! 21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using AFC is an option but unless an article creator has a stated COI, it's not required. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Huelva

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

Looks to me as a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT, notability is not established. Moreover, there is the strange cross-wiki promotion of this article Renvoy (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spain. Renvoy (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. It is true (and unnecessary) that this article is being created in too many languages (probably caused by the action of fans); however I do support its permanence in the Spanish Wikipedia (where several non-recently-created users have already supported its permanence), or in this case in the English-language Wikipedia.
    In this case, I think that the most coherent for this article is to exist in Wikipedias of some of the languages spoken in Spain (Spanish, Catalan, Basque), and maybe in other languages such as Portuguese or French; therefore I consider that it is also coherent to have this article in English, the current global lingua franca. And regarding Elena Huelva, there is abundant information about her actions and activism before her death, to be able to affirm that it is not a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Salvabl (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: FYI the articles in Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Cebuano, German, Esperanto, Extremeño, Euskera, French, Galician, Portuguese, Swedish and Finnish are automatic transalations created by two sockpuppets of Remitbuber, a very dangerous crosswiki saboteur and meatpuppeteer, see Maitegonza68 and Tripasviccion global contributions and global blocks. This isn't a work of fans, this is a deliberate act that is exposing the weaknesses of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects and Salvabl is taking advantage of this gap created by the saboteur to force the relevance of the biography on all possible Wikipedias. This can set a bad crosswiki precedent. Taichi (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Regardless of which user started the creation of the articles, no puppet or newly created user has added any comment to this deletion discussion page. On the other hand, and as I have already explained in the Spanish Wikipedia, it is totally false when you claim, for example, that this article in the Catalan Wikipedia is an automatic translation. One only needs to check its history to realize that it is not as you say. Then, you claim that I am "taking advantage" of the existing situation, when, as I have already said in my first comment on this page, I do not consider it necessary for this article to exist in so many languages. I can agree with you when you state that this is not a work of fans, but an act of another nature. But, then, if you consider that this article should cease to exist on Wikipedia in Cebuano (for example), then you should propose a possible deletion there. However, you are talking about all this here while claiming that I am the one who is "taking advantage". And also, on the other hand, it should be taken into account that there are other Wikipedias, such as the German one, where German-speaking users have chosen to check and edit the article, and not to propose its deletion, since there are even German-language sources (see here) about Huelva. Salvabl (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to/wait for the result of Spanish-language AfD. There is an ongoing Spanish-language AfD that is probably better able to assess the available sources and context, and does not seem yet to be near a consensus. From what my Spanish can make out, the discussion there seems to be going along the lines I'd expect this AfD to go: Huelva had a significant online following on Instagram and TikTok that seems to be contributing actively to these articles across Wikis, and there is significant source coverage of her death in the popular press (contributing to interest in her life) but is it WP:SINGLEEVENT? My instinct is that Huelva is more likely to meet WP:SINGLEEVENT by virtue of being a cancer activist, so looking to her book sales and online following is more helpful to establish notability. But I'd wait to see how the Spanish-language AfD goes as it's probably going to have the discussion there that we would have here. _MB190417_ (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, she's got coverage in the BBC [2], the Independent as quoted and in People [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What single event are we disputing as being notable, her death? The sources cover her career, her activism, her life and passing away. She gained media attention in Spanish-language media long before she passed. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Papparapaam

Papparapaam (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)

Unreleased film that fails to establish notability. Interviews look like primary sources. No reliable two reviews. No release of notable soundtrack reviews or trailer (trailer removed from YouTube). Similar Tamil films sent to festival without reviews do not have articles, examples include Kida and Revelations. This source says "upcoming Tamil movie", which confirms that the movie is unreleased. The movie did not release on 14 August 2015 per this (the fact that there are no audience reviews means that the film did not release). The film did not release even in 2018 per this.

In conclusion, the film does not look it establishes notability as an unreleased film. This source says that it was sent to the Toronto International Film Festival but there is no confirmation of that from the official website. DareshMohan (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this upcoming film fails WP:NFF as the coverage is mostly routine, other WP:NFILM criteria are also failed. Most of the references appear to be interview-like (non-SIGCOV), using quotes and mainly focusing on the director and cast. The two references from The Hindu, 1, 2 appears to be more substantive, however, unfortunately they are largely dependent on non-independent quotes. Otherwise, the independent direct commentary outlines minor festivals and listing the cast, which is routine and fails WP:SIGCOV. My WP:BEFORE mainly found non-SIGCOV announcements, therefore I am at delete. However, do ping me if more references are found. VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JBW (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Khamis Richard

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

Article about a politician that fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Commissioners are not presumed automatically notable especially in Africa as its a municipal level office. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Lainya County, of which he is commissioner, has a population of 80,000 according to its Wikipedia entry;
2. the other counties in the state do not have entries for their commissioners that are linked from their articles, and one of the counties doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own; and
3. the current article mostly discusses either Emmanuel Khamis Richard's views or county-level issues, except for the mention that he chaired Central Equatoria State's anti-corruption commission.
These, I think, fail WP:NPOL for me. In a country of 11.5 million people, this feels like a local politician, and so my inclination is towards delete. A quick Google search hasn't really returned anything more notable. But this comes with the obvious caveat that, as I say, I know nothing about South Sudanese politics, and perhaps commissioners have more power than these observations suggest. _MB190417_ (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MB190417, commissioners are very influential figures in the South Sudanese politics. A lot of information about South Sudan is missing on the internet which is why those outside may not get a lot of information about the truth. As the Wikimedia User Group South Sudan, we are trying to change the narrative by making necessary edits and also creating new pages. The best way is for you as editors to guide and offer edit suggestions instead of deleting pages which frustrates our efforts in puttting all these information together. Bida thomas (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales: Your comments are exactly why I refrained from endorsing 'Delete', and merely wrote some indicative comments, especially in the fear that this AfD might not attract altogether that many contributors (which is all the more reason to welcome your contributions as well as any insights that the South Sudan User Group can provide). The thrust of my comments are to say that the leader of a similarly-sized local authority (I have open on another page the election history for a borough of 143,000 residents) would not apply in my country, so knowing no more about South Sudanese politics, and finding no sources on Emmanuel Khamis Richard beyond the scope of the county or his views, my inclination is that this entry is too local for inclusion. But I'm happy to be proved wrong if sources can demonstrate otherwise, which so far they have not.
Nevertheless, your comment worries me for two reasons. Firstly, it's perfectly right for articles to be subject to community review if there is considerable concern that articles do not meet the policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't function by having select groups having exclusive authority over certain pages: the policies are universal and belong to the whole community. Secondly, I think "change the narrative" is a troubling phrase to use. If you have reliable sources that you can provide to counter the concerns expressed in this AfD, mainly WP:NPOL, then you should share them here and in the article. If no such sources exist, then Wikipedia's policies apply, and the policies are the only narrative acceptable on Wikipedia. _MB190417_ (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day @Jamiebuba do you suggest we change the article category or something else? Bida thomas (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lainya County, per WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV as discussed above. I follow South Sudanese politics and had never heard of Khamis, and while the sources cited are creditable, they primarily discuss Khamis in a local context. However, since the commissioner is an important figure within the county, merging at least most of this article's material to a new section on the Lainya County page sees to me to be the best solution. --Leviavery (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promotional puff piece about non-notable local official, from an author who I strongly suspect is being paid to produce this and other promotional puff pieces (see his currrent draft submission as an example). --10mmsocket (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there seems to be some uncertainty about this article. And I don't understand the comment to Jimbo Wales who I've never seen participate in an AFD discussion before (although he probably has).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: I'm genuinely not sure what happened there either. I was meaning to tag @Bida thomas, and I'm not quite sure how I ended up tagging Jimbo Wales. With apologies to Jimbo. _MB190417_ (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local politician, not meeting notability requirements. Agree with the puff pieces as discussed above. He seems to be good at getting his image out to media, but that doesn't mean notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as it's a local politician without significant press coverage. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I strongly believe that the creator of this page fails the WP:DUCK test for paid editing. He/she has created multiple articles yesterday and today, all of which look like the same low quality spammy bios as this one. I have (boldly) moved most (probably not all if anyone else wants to take a look) of the creations into draft space, as that's where they belong. Feel free to take a look at the bottom of User talk:Bida thomas for the long list of spammy articles moved back into draft. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Museum of Islamic Art, Doha. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIA Park

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

Was draftified by DGG with the hopes that it would be improved. Was not. Currently, zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. And searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pimley School

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

Nothing exists even after closure of this school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. AllyD (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The 2015 "keep" decision rested heavily on the then-applicable interpretation of school notability, though also with a suggestion that reorientation to an article on the Ermine (Private) Limited managing company might be appropriate. Both this School and the management company appear to have left little trace: Wayback indicates that the Pimley School website operated to Dec 2018 (then was repurposed to Peak Solutions in 2020) and that Ermine was active from 2013-19. I am finding no evidence of attained notability to current standards. AllyD (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and rationale by AllyD. Fails WP:GNG. 2405:201:3002:116D:A963:41B1:A8A6:C973 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubu'a Al Hekma Global School

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

Non-notable school, fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Gonzalez (soccer)

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

Semi-pro that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The spotlight on reference is not independent as it's published by the club that he plays for. The best sources that I found were The West, Sydney Morning Herald and My Football, all of which only mention Gonzalez once. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rawalpindi International School

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

Promotional article, fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peshawar Public School and College

AfDs for this article:
Peshawar Public School and College (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 for-profit school. Can't find any in-depth independent source. BookishReader (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darussalam Academy

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

Non-notable private school. BookishReader (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JBW (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religious bias on Wikipedia

Religious bias on Wikipedia (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 I don't doubt that over its 22 year history there has been religious bias on Wikipedia, the majority of the claims in this artice are vague and unsourced. I think the article should be moved to Draft space until the accusations in the article can be supported with reliable sources because right now it seems like a lot of original research. I could have just moved it to Draft space but page moves can always be reverted if the page creator objects so I'm bringing it to AFD to get a more consensus-based verdict on what should happen to this article. I see potential in the topic but there are just a lot of general claims of bias and I don't think it is main space-ready. I can see this article appearing on Wikipedia in 2006 but it's 2023 and Wikipedia now requires more verification, especially on potentially controversial subjects. I ask that it be moved to Draft or User space for now. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so much work has been done on this article in the past few hours since it was nominated for deletion that it no longer resembles the article I nominated. It still might make sense to draftify it though. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Liz, if insourced claims seemed to be issue, I omitted those for the time being until i properly source them. It's Keya (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my humor deficit disorder in plainview. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this separate from bias on Wikipedia? Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep!The content is very important. I observe how numerous users who are close to religions are particularly active in inserting inappropriate content into Wikipedia. Especially fundamentalist oriented users are active here. Look for example at conflicts in the articles Padre Pio and Miracle of Lanciano. I am glad that secular users have intervened here. Religious beliefs must always be very clearly separated from statements of fact. And that's exactly what a lot of religious users bypass. Mr. bobby (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I realize that an article for the topic is wrong. But the topic itself is very important for Wikipedia.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we get at least as many complaints from religious people that our articles do not contain THE TRUTH™. But, anyway, it doesn't matter (for the purposes of this discussion) who complains about bias. The important thing is whether reliable sources have covered this as a distinct topic from general bias on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This response to my comment obviously assumes that religious POV is encyclopedically equivalent to demanding strict control of religious beliefs and disguising them as facts. That is precisely what religious POV already is. Some of the "TRUTH" followers have exactly one god. Others many hundreds. For some a certain Jesus is the son of one God, for others simply a man. So please: This is exactly the problem. The believers put their beliefs in here. Wikipedia is strictly secular.Mr. bobby (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with whether Wikipedia should have an article about religious bias on Wikipedia, which is the purpose of this discussion? That depends on whether reliable sources have written about such bias. This isn't a general discussion about the topic of the article. If it was I would probably agree with you. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or otherwise merge into bias on Wikipedia. I don't think it is encyclopedic. This should be the matter of Wikipedia policies, certainly not of a Wikipedia article. There is surely bias in some articles pertaining to religion, including a lot of unencyclopedic content (see for instance what I wrote here), but this is attributable to either sources or users who make use of them or who add unsourced interpretations, and it should be a fleeting problem internal to Wikipedia, and therefore not the subject of an article proposed to the reading audience. If neutrality policies were well enforced and biased users were kept at bay, the problem would be greatly reduced or disappear.--Æo (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then there can and should be an article about the topic. The problem is that the article at present doesn't provide evidence that such coverage exists - it's mostly just a list of controversies that the author has decided amount to evidence of religious bias. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent two WP:GNG sources about religious bias on Wikipedia. Not just bias on Wikipedia. And not stringing together a handful of specific incidents and collecting them into an article. The three "specific instances" listed now (which, I understand, is post-cleanup) are not instances of religious bias. The Scientology case is just regular plain-old COI/PROMO editing; that the organization happens to be a religion is incidental; there are tons of organizations, governments, etc., who have done this. We have an article about it, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. We also have List of Wikipedia controversies, either of which would be an appropriate place to cover the Scientology thing. The second example is an allegation of religious bias following the deletion of an article. This is also known as "another day at AFD": if we had a nickel for every time someone accused of bias for deleting an article (and if we had a dime for every time they were right!). Accusations of religious bias are not enough to support an article about religious bias. I'm not sure that's even worth covering in any article. The third example is a false claim that someone belongs to a religion. If we had a nickel for every fact error in Wikipedia... Put all of this together, and I don't see anywhere near enough for an article, not enough to draftify, not enough to even keep it as a redirect. I don't believe "religious bias on Wikipedia" is actually something that has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources. It probably should, but it hasn't yet, or at least I haven't seen any yet. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify. An article on this subject could be notable, but as Levivich shows why this isn't it. Also the current lead is a perfect example of why WP:TNT exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Delete The article is a mess, and the sourcing is highly questionable. There are references to blogs, to lecture notes, to other unreliable sources, and on top of that, many of the sources have nothing to do with religion. There is no basis for a separate article. Banks Irk (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It simply is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable, seems to be mainly a response to perceived bias by editors here. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete because it was created by a sockpuppet who was evading an indefinite block. The counterargument is that the article has been substantially edited by others, but from what I've seen that heavy editing has simply been the slashing of unsourced original research and other nonsense the sockpuppet threw in, probably to "stir the pot" and waste as much time of other editors as he could. If there is any germ of an article here, separate from Bias on Wikipedia, WP:TNT is called for. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think self-referential content like this needs to have clear notability in order to warrant an article, and this particular subject falls short of that. WP:GNG isn't met and what little content remains after the (warranted) purging of problematic material could more than easily be covered on another article, but that's a couple of sentences worth of material at best and I'm fine with outright deletion. I have no doubt that there is religious bias on Wikipedia, but does that warrant an article? Not according to the (lack of) sources. It may be an important topic of conversation, but article space isn't the place for that conversation because it doesn't have the notability that is expected of an article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Yesterday I declined a WP:G5 request for this article, as – in my view – while it is indubitably a sockpuppet creation, it has been substantially edited by other editors and so is no longer eligible for speedy deletion under that (or any) criterion. I should have left this note immediately after doing that, my apologies. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Lehrasib Khan Gondal

Muhammad Lehrasib Khan Gondal (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. BookishReader (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greencore Construction

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

Fails WP:NCORP, does not have significant coverage. gov.uk source has nothing related to the company in question, other sources are brief mentions at best. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Molnar

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

Can't find anything towards WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG, his one game in an WP:FPL is no longer relevant. Best I can find is a passing mention in Nemzeti Sport, also derived from a Facebook post, Sport 24, which mentions him only once, and Sport.ua, which mentions him being a defender and having played 17 youth matches. Sport.ua is the best source but it's not good enough for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No The website for FC Hoverla Uzhhorod, a club that he played for No No Mentioned twice only ✘ No
Yes Yes No Says he made his debut, not mentioned again in text ✘ No
No The website for FC Hoverla Uzhhorod, a club that he played for No No Mentioned 3 times, all of which are just lists of footballers. Molnár is not addressed directly. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
Yes Yes No Can't see any mention of him ✘ No
Dead link - looks like a tournament page ? Unknown
Yes Yes No Soccerway is a database ✘ No
No No WP:TRANSFERMARKT No Database ✘ No
Yes Yes No Database ✘ No
Yes Yes No Database ✘ No
Yes Yes No Database ✘ No
Yes No No Database ✘ No
Yes No No Database ✘ No
Yes No No Database ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stina battle

Stina battle (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" are mostly PR pieces masquerading as articles (e.g. the Digital Journal piece). From reading the article and the sources, one would think that Stina Battle is a popular upcoming artist. Bizarrely, there are no Google News results for her[4], and just 22(!) Google hits[5], which is absolutely nothing for a US contemporary artist. Fram (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no independent coverage is given and all through press releases. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 1991 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Fabian. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Fabian (1991)

Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a GA from 2006 but I genuinely don't see why this article should exist. The article specifically states that the tropical storm was short lived, caused little rainfall, killed no one, and damaged nothing. Nothing here seems WP:LASTING. The entire article too is cited solely to the National Hurricane Center and NOAA. There was somewhat of a merger proposal in 2011 but it just devolved into an anti-mergist rant mostly based on personal opinion. Though, if there is an argument to keep this then I'd love to hear it but I personally don't see a reason to keep it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NWEATHER states that a cyclone/hurricane/tropical storm is notable if damage reports exist of it, and there were reports published by NOAA of the damage caused. It should also be noted that "there is no minimum number of casualties or amount of damage required to make a storm notable". However, the lack of coverage on other places around the internet or WP:OFFLINE is concerning. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheManInTheBlackHat: You cite that damage reports need to exist for it to be notable but per the article "there were no reported fatalities or damage." Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, while the article does cite NOAA, It only cites NOAA. Per WP:GNG "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.". So I should at least expect more than NOAA to determine whether this should be a standalone article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point, I'll bump my keep down to a comment. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I personally think that this is a good example of where the information in the article could be better presented in the Season Article. However, I am curious to hear if @Cyclonebiskit: has changed his mind in the ten years or so, since his rant on the talkpage of the article. Jason Rees (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Al-Muqaitib

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

BLP with no acceptable sources. Best sources I can find are Ar Riyadiyah, which mentions him once, Time Kora, which looks like a blog, contains no in-depth coverage and is referenced to a Twitter page, Al Fiha, which is a basic transfer announcement that merely states his year of birth, position and length of contract and Al-Jazirah, which has only one sentence about him, confirming that he has signed a three-year contract. None of the above meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC.

Furthermore, the article was created by a block-evading sock and has been edited by two more confirmed socks in Lilianasri and Gulfup. Some IP edits mean that this is ineligible for WP:G5 but the socking is still worth mentioning. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Japan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiro Tanaka

Jujiro Tanaka (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)

He competed at the 1968 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything else significant although there could be sources in Japanese that I didn't find. Could be redirected to Rowing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's eight or Japan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. Suonii180 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iestyn Evans

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of detailed coverage from independent sources. In my searches, the best that I can find is South Wales Argus, which mentions him only once. This club website mentions him being sent off in a match but this is routine game coverage and SPORTBASIC states team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. I found plenty of hits on ProQuest but none seem to be relevant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters#Foaly. (I hope nobody objects to me targeting the section in the list) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foaly

Foaly (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)

What we have here is a pure plot summary related to a secondary character in a book series, with OR mixed in ("role in the series" section) and a very fancrufty "list of inventions". The references present are PRIMARY (books from the series Artemis Fowl). BEFORE found little - there are a few sentence of analysis in this academic book chapter (I am linking this through Wikimedia Library, a useful tool), but I think WP:SIGCOV is not met, and other sources I see seem to be even more in passing and less analytical. I suggest redirecting this to the List of Artemis Fowl characters. If anyone feels like rescuing something, they could try to add a bit of analysis to the list of characters entry using the source I found, even a single sentence would help as it would add said reference to Wikipedia for future editors to have something to work with (the analysis IMHO boils down to a single sentence about how making this character a genius inventor of technology gadgets makes him less of animal and more human... that's it). Maybe one day more significant treatments of this character will emerge. But considering the article's current state (plot summary+OR), there is little to be lost outside maybe the lead, infobox, and the categories anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to improve the article's sourcing to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 09:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs (song)

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

There aren't any sources to prove notability, and I can't find any other reliable sources other than the one already in the article. Spinixster (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found a long list of coverage from what I believe are all reliable sources: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Between all of those (and possibly more; this was far from an exhaustive search), I don't see why this shouldn't be a keep. QuietHere (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NSONG. Maybe should consider adding @QuietHere's sources to article. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 18:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until I Found You

Until I Found You (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)

Although this song seems notable (?), sources aside from ones on the chart table are not reliable sources. The article also lacks references, too. My choice would be to redirect to Stephen Sanchez, but I was told to put this in AfD, so here we go. Spinixster (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as Lk95 just said, the charting is so significant across so much of the world that I would've never thought to bring this to AfD. Though the nominator is correct that the other sourcing on page is no good (especially that ever-pernicious uDiscoverMusic), the sources Lk linked should make for good replacements. And while I'm here, I went and found an article about that Ginny & Georgia appearance which I will add right now. QuietHere (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage satisfies notability. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to push back against the "baffling" and "dumbest" comments above. While yes, the charting does make this an easy pass, the sourcing was absolutely abysmal prior to this discussion. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least call this too soon if the non-charts coverage isn't there yet. Of course it was, but that doesn't invalidate the initial claim. Besides, those same awful sources are still in the article now, and none of the better ones Lk listed above have been added yet. QuietHere (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...but note that WP:BEFORE says that a concerned editor should tackle those exact same problems before or instead of resorting to an AfD. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy C. Barton House

Guy C. Barton House (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)

Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from the register doesn't remove notability. Removal usually happens when a building is demolished or destroyed, which is what happened here. And WP:N is clear that notability is not temporary - even demolished historic buildings are notable. ɱ (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable single family home with a strong claim of notability, in that it was registered in the NRHP. Even more important now that it's been de-listed, as it's no longer an existing structure. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All sites on the National Register of Historic Places have a nomination, which typically includes a description of the site, an explanation of its historic significance, and a list of references. (The exception to this rule is multiple property submissions, but that's not relevant in this case.) In this case, the nomination is available from the National Archives, and all of the above are present. The process of getting on to the National Register both sets a higher bar than GNG and produces a substantial source in its own right, which is why sites on the National Register are typically considered notable. The house being delisted doesn't change that, since notability is not temporary. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as listed in NRHP, like previous commenters have pointed out. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although deletion nominator –DMartin was not wrong in questioning this, and "Keep" !votes above ring a bit hollow IMHO. The house is not important because it was NRHP-listed; rather some importance of the house likely has contributed to published coverage about the place and to its NRHP listing. Note that NRHP listing usually but definitely not always signifies that substantial documentation will exist in the form of a somewhat lengthy NRHP nomination or registration report. Such a report, if it exists, would likely provide substantial detail and assertion of importance of the house. Shouldn't that jolly well be rounded up, though? I have made some edits identifying sources; it would be nice if "Keep" voters would do penance by contributing a bit in development of the article from those sources. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rosebud, Victoria#Schools. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud Primary School

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

Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history. Crowsus (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I couldn't find sufficient independent sources to show notability. I've added the year the school was established in the Rosebud article but I'm against merging anything else as the majority of the article is unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent and reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caballero Universal

AfDs for this article:
Caballero Universal (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)

Second time around (first AfD resulted in No Consensus) and nothing has changed; all of the sources are social media posts are from the pageant itself. There are some sources in Spanish that were brought up in the previous AfD, but I don't believe any of them can be used to establish notability. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 23 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! 08:18, 30 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) 08:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Reed House

Mary Reed House (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)

Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places disagrees. Q.E.D. Toddst1 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that Wikiproject determine what is and isn't notable, or does the GNG? –DMartin 08:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DMartin, what the other user is trying to say is that there have been discussions about notability at the WikiProject. We look at older closed AfDs, and there is a long-term precedent: sites that the U.S. national government considers significant for their historic register are significant enough for us to cover here. ɱ (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can pull up the relevant documentation from the NRHP, it's usually at least 10 pages long and very detailed. It's about some of the best coverage you could want for any listed heritage building. They don't just throw listings at anything and see what sticks; the sites will have been evaluated at the local level first by architectural or archeological experts before it can even be presented to the NRHP for consideration. It's a long and tedious process, it's almost a peer-reviewed journal history for the building. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I wouldn't extend the assumption of notability we grant to NRHP sites to local historic sites in general, in this case the landmark designation came with a substantial document that details the history of the house and explains its significance, which is enough evidence for me to consider it notable as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although so far at the article page and here it has not been shown to be NRHP-listed. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subject is not a NRHP site. The nom brought up NRHP for some reason. The nom bringing it up has distracted folks. Toddst1 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to User:Toddst1's unfair insinuations here and in related discussions in which they suggest impropriety on part of deletion nominator, and I object to Toddst1's projections about WikiProject NRHP and its editors such as myself, and I object to their apparent violation of Wikipedia guideline wp:CANVAS.
Right here, their statement says that the nom (which in this context means the nominator) "brought up NRHP for some reason. The nom bringing it up has distracted folks." That's FALSE, it was Toddst1 bringing up NRHP here, above with statement "Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places disagrees. Q.E.D.". In retrospect, that statement itself seems snide and inappropriate. Honestly, it rubbed me the wrong way that Toddst1 was assuming they could speak for me and other diverse NRHP editors that way.
It was Toddst1 who posted at wt:NRHP: "Something is wrong there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy C. Barton House. Related and relevant deletion (but not NRHP) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House." That appears to be a violation of wp:CANVAS, a four-criteria behavioural guideline, as it is biased (suggestion "something is wrong"), it is partisan (selective/votestacking, in that it alerts only NRHP editors whom I think Toddst1 projects will react predictably, and not, say, WikiProject Nebraska or editors at the Omaha, Nebraska article, who could know the ground and could well be highly dubious about merit of these places, one of which is long gone, and the other not NRHP-listed for unknown-to-us reasons), and it is secret (it is stealth canvassing in that Toddst1 did not disclose here that they had posted the notice -- note if they had, it is likely that I or others would have taken steps to counter its evil, e.g. by posting notices at wp:NEBRASKA, by directly objecting to biased tone at wp:NRHP).
Also, it was Toddst1 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy C. Barton House making overstatements and personal insinuations, and calling for NRHP editors to come on over here, too:

A NRHP landmark with several independent reliable sources should pass anyone's definition of WP:GNG. It seems the nom is trying to (IMHO nuisance) delete several Omaha landmarks and doesn't believe NRHP registration has any effect on WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House.

At first I did not identify all parts of this, and even if I had it doesn't add up to being the worst problem in the world, but it did make me uncomfortable at least. I chose to be polite and not call out Toddst1 specifically, and I rather chose to try to be sympathetic and a bit apologetic to the nominator, with my statement below. I suggested that they might feel the reactions of NRHP editors (including myself) here and in the other AFD to be a bit "clannish". Like, yo, i'm sorry we might come across that way sometimes, and here about the content....
Further, though, for my using the term "clannish", Toddst1 came to my Talk page to accuse me of "ad hominem" attacks upon NRHP editors! And went on with other nonsensical accusations that I can dish it out but not take it, etc. For one, I think Toddst1 does not understand I am very much an NRHP editor, that, if that was a dish, I was dishing it out against myself too. It is not abhorrent to use the word "clannish", which is broadly descriptive of the behavior of groups of like-minded people. It's not a bad word at all, and is really not a bad word like say the N word is, and even that word is allowed to be used by members of the group that is otherwise disparaged by the term when it is coming from others.
They chided me:

As I read it, your use of "clannish" was entirely negative. Unmodified, the NRHP project members are a positive group. By labeling them clannish - it implied to me that you thought they look out for and protect each other at the expense of other goals (aka prejudiced). Why label them as other than what they are? Comment on content, not on the contributor(s).

To Toddst1, take that to heart yourself, and a) don't make ad hominem attacks against Dmartin or other nominators this way, b) don't sneak around to round up opposition who might join in your negativity, and c) don't assume NRHP editors as a group are stupid and act in lockstep and are so assinine and predictable as you suppose they are. (To be clear, to spell it out for you, I am not suggesting that any of the NRHP editors here or elsewhere are assinine. People in general, including me, can sometimes be prompted to show up and say things or go along with things which seem to give assent to actually abhorrent behavior. When we would not if we saw what was going on. And NRHP editors here, while perhaps having been invited (manipulated?) to show up, have actually been discussing content and their views, civilly and appropriately.
In response to your several exhortations to me such as "You're better than that" and "I (incorrectly) assumed your skin would be thick enough to deal with the direct feedback", well, I say to you, consider this feedback to yourself here.
To others, I apologize that this extended comment is off track to the direct topic of the Mary Reed House. Although I hope you understand my feeling I should say something in response. I asked Toddst1 not to post further on my Talk page, although invited them to take one last shot if they wished, and I suppose they could do so here too. Otherwise, I would prefer further discussion of inappropriate behavior here (including if ppl think mine is inappropriate) take place at a more appropriate forum such as wp:ANI (although I truly hate that place). –DMartin, if there is continuation of a pattern of attacking you, let me know (elsewhere), and I myself will open there. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I agree that Toddst1's behaviour was inappropriate, I decided to step away and think about it again once this process was settled. Thank you for your confidence. –DMartin 22:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Threats of Ani are bully tactics. Either do or don't but AFD is not the place for this mess. Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed from "Merge" --01:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)). I think editor –DMartin is not wrong to question, and to put clannish editors in one WikiProject to task. I was gonna say "Keep", but actually i feel I could/should go further to support DMartin. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to say Keep first because it's a significant work of notable architect F.A. Henninger, and it appears I started the Wikipedia article about them more than 10 years ago, but maybe Dmartin would not be impressed.
  • Okay, Keep, second, because it is a Prairie Style work, and I like that, and if u click through to see a photo it's style is apparent at least if u have been long-involved in writing NRHP articles, and I like that, although it is no Fallingwater, not even a Ward W. Willits House. But some say wp:ILIKEIT is not valid at AFD.
  • Hmm, well how about what TheCatalyst says, that in this case the local landmark designation document shows significance. Actually this exactly suffices, IMHO.
  • But, further, actually the document looks a whole lot like a NRHP nomination document, and it costs money and effort to create such, and then I wonder whether it was nominated but did not achieve NRHP listing (which could happen). Is it not well preserved, or was it never that great (it is kinda plain), or is it in some other way deficient, and not worth memorializing in a Wikipedia article? Well, I actually suspect it is NRHP-listed, as are the 30 Henninger works in Dundee-Happy Hollow Historic District whose addresses were all painstakingly recorded in the F.A. Henninger article (probably by me). 503 S. 36 St. (or S. 35 St?) is not even close to any those. But mentioned in the Henninger article is also the NRHP-listed Gold Coast Historic District (Omaha, Nebraska), which is "roughly bounded by 36th St.", and this Mary Reed House article says it's in the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast Historic District (Omaha, Nebraska) article should jolly well include already a NRHP nomination document reference which would directly answer, but does not. Maybe that shud be fixed? I bet the house is included in that district, which fact can further support its significance.
  • If that is confirmed, though, I think it highly reasonable to argue it doesn't need a separate article (Dmartin's point). It should be covered in the HD article. Buildings which are contributing resources in a NRHP HD are definitely entitled to wear a "listed on the NRHP" plaque, and sometimes they have a separate wikipedia article. But if there's not much more to say than is in the current Mary Reed House article, or no one is choosing to say more, then all of it surely can be shifted over to the HD article, perhaps in a row in a new table which would improve that article. If some Omahan(?) really is developing, they could split it out to a separate article when warranted, in the future. If it is not too long though, it is actually more informative for readers for an item to be covered in a list-article, so it can be seen in context relative to others (spatially and otherwise), and the reader can accurately uhderstand and infer more about the one place.
And there's another merger target possibility: the list of works in the H.A. Henninger article. Why not expand the info provided in its row, put in an row anchor (by use of id="Mary Reed House"), and redirect Mary Reed House to F.A. Henninger#Mary Reed House?
So I am going with "Merge", either to a section or row in the HD article, or to its already existing row in the Henninger article. The current article is not something to be proud of, and merging would be an editing improvement. Arguably anyone could just boldly merge it even without an AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The house is not in that historic district. There is a link to the nomination in the infobox, and maps can be found online. This house is a few blocks east of the HD. ɱ (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Ɱ, and I was wrong in my supposition. I figured out later the house is not included, and realized I had kind of been betting against my previous self, i.e. that I would have missed identifying the house as NRHP contributing, when I had struggled to round up works for the Henninger article. I just added a full NRHP document reference to the HD article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--ɱ (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, changing my !vote, thanks. I'll take your word about those articles (behind a paywall, could be accessed through newspapers.com which I have not lined up). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Warhammer 40,000#The Imperium of Man. Star Mississippi 03:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

AfDs for this article:
Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) (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)

Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T'au Empire and others (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necron (Warhammer 40,000)), we have exactly the same problem here: This is a lengthy plot summary with some comments about related miniature and video games, but the topic sadly seems to fail WP:GNG. The few references cited (note the article is mostly unreferenced, with much WP:OR to be concerned about) are not independent and come entirely from game material (rulebooks, novels, video games, etc.). BEFORE shows any how-to-play (or paint, or mod) guides for this faction, but nothing that suggests the faction is notable outside of the game (I found one academic article that in passing criticizes the faction for being male-dominated: [20], I don't think this treatment meets WP:SIGCOV). The best WP:ATD I can suggest would be merging some referenced content to Warhammer_40,000#The_Imperium_of_Man (a section that appears unreferenced), since I guess referencing stuff to PRIMARY sources is still better than not referencing it at all... PS. I double-checked sources provided in the AfD discussion from 2017 and none appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to Keep this article. If the nominator wishes to introduce changes in how deletion discussions about this subject are decided, they are encouraged to introduce an RFC on a relevant policy or WikiProject talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harpalus numidicus

Harpalus numidicus (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)

Species is not notable as per WP:NOTE, note number 1: "... directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources". Species is not covered anywhere from what I can see outside of databases. EvilxFish (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Validly described species [1] (although the Carabidae.org link is broken since they went to a subscription model - fixed to CoL), and being present in these databases is what we go by when determining notability of species. See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Please familiarize yourself with the practices regarding taxonomic articles before engaging in deletion debates about them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, because I can see a confusion regarding databases and species here: any validly described species does perforce have a citable, published description (in this case: [2]). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that does not mean it has been significantly covered by independent secondary sources as per WP:GNG. If all one needs to prove a species is notable enough is a database entry, perhaps a bot should be created to scrape databases and flood wikipedia with millions of stubs relating to species that have no coverage at all. Even if the common outcome is these articles are seldom if ever deleted, that outcome I'd argue is against WP:GNG. We are building an encyclopedia, not a database which is more the job of wikidata. EvilxFish (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, I was unaware that existed. I must stress, that is not a wikipedia policy as noted at the top of the page just a common outcome. I will take your word on the description and such being published, unfortunately due to the language barrier (and a difficulty finding a link to it online), I cannot check it! Even if such a published description exists, am I right in assuming it is a primary reference? If yes then I would argue that notability as per WP:GNG is still not satisfied because of both the "sources" bullet point and "significant coverage". Finally I would argue just because an outcome commonly occurs does not mean that outcome is correct as per policy. EvilxFish (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are common outcomes, very common outcomes, and invariable outcomes. This is the latter. Probably from the beginning of Wikipedia, and certainly for the last decade, no article on a validly described recent species has been deleted for notability reasons. That this is only codified in the form of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is a perpetual annoyance, and results in this kind of abortive nomination roughly every 2-3 months. I can only suggest that if you disagree with this practice, you should bring it up at a more central venue. (The latest broadly related kerfuffle is here) On a case-by-case basis, this is not going to happen. - Re bots, we have had several extensive bot runs that have added thousands of species articles. The latest batch that I'm aware of was done by Qbugbot. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you I will try and bring it up in a more central venue and I apologize for not being aware of all of this, I will refrain from posting similar afds until (hopefully) there is a policy change that would suggest that it is a good thing to do. EvilxFish (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As already stated, described species always pass notability once picked up by other scientific organisations and databases. Wikipedia requirements for secondary sources don't fit clearly with scientific publications, which can be a mix of primary source (the results) and secondary source (introduction and parts of discussion). The policy cited above says "databases ... may not actually support notability when examined", not that they don't. If we examine databases published by organisations dedicated to the study of such species and where entries are curated by experts the field, who have accepted the species is valid, then surely they count as some form of secondary or tertiary source. When they don't accept the species then that is usually grounds for deletion. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we accept a database as a secondary source it is by no means "significant coverage" and consists of nothing more than very basic information for any particular entry. It it was a review article for example that spoke about the species or if a review existed about certain features of it etc, that would constitute significant coverage. I just feel that essentially this encyclopedia will become a database itself if this is the line we pursue. Every chemical, every protein, etc would all be notable, yet projects like the chemistry project will not accept that. Anyway as I made clear above, I am going to try work towards a policy change that changes what we currently accept. EvilxFish (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you do so, please post a link to it here. I'm not convinced that you are wrong, but what you are proposing is a major change of a long-standing consensus. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
certainly, I am discussing it here @SchreiberBike: EvilxFish (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as others have said, but I think we can expand that from a stub. The BHL has a copy of the book referenced here, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/183282, pg 112 describes H. numidicus, is there a way we could find a person from Wikipedia who knows French to help us translate? Thanks all. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have noted, this meets WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Harpalus (Harpalus) numidicus Bedel, 1893". Catalogue of Life. Species 2000: Leiden, the Netherlands. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  2. ^ Bedel, L. (1893). "Diagnoses de coléoptères d'Algérie". L'Abeille, Journal d'Entomologie. 28: 102–104.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kaiviti Silktails players

List of Kaiviti Silktails players (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)

Contrary to the lead, this article lists only the players in the teams very first game in 2020. The page has not been updated for the past two years. It is historically inaccurate and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article has no encyclopedic merit. WWGB (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and there is a valid argument against the redirect, so I have not done so despite it being a potential AtD Star Mississippi 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Autonomous Space

Glasgow Autonomous Space (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 this centre does many laudable things, I could only find one reliable source that gave the subject significant coverage, the Glasgow Times, not enough to support a claim of notability Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiachra10003 As I published, I was aware that notability might be an issue, but chose to be bold. Although the Freedom News source seems to provide significant coverage, I presume it fails in reliability or independence?
In any case, I've searched quite exhaustively, and can find no other significant sources. If deletion is the right choice given the sources available now, so be it.
Thanks for keeping wikipedia encyclopedic! :) DougInAMugtalk 14:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Douginamug, I hate that sinking feeling when a subject that I personally find interesting proves not to meet the notability standards. The Freedom News source is a very good question, because that was the only source that wrote directly about the Glasgow Autonomous Space. As I noticed, it has a wikipedia article of its own, but it is a website and biannual paper with a circulation of about 1,000. On the other hand, it's a very long-established newspaper, dating all the way back to Peter Kropotkin. I would invite others to opine as to whether that is enough to meet the standards of WP:NCORP. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think even in the case that Freedom News is a significant source, there's still the matter that this would be the only significant source, failing the significant coverage requirement in WP:ORGCRITE. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Belichickoverbrady Ah, so you think the Glasgow Times article fails notability? (I'm not trying to save this article, just want to get a better understanding for the future) DougInAMugtalk 12:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discussed above, fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill venue that fails WP:NORG. There are lots and lots of event venues in the world and overwhelming majority of them are not notable. Existence is not notability. Freedom Press has been discussed at least once. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_223#Are_left-anarchist_sources_reliable_for_an_article_on_such_a_group? The narrower the intended audience, the less relevant something is for general notability. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish self-organized spaces were run of the mill! I accept that it fails notability now, however. Thanks for bringing my attention to the essay. DougInAMugtalk 12:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment while I recognize that we should consider WP:ATD when possible, I don't think this would be it. This sort of re-direct invites creating re-direct for every retail outlet, organization etc into "organizations in abc, companies in abc, collective in abc". In some cases, deletion is more appropriate and this would be one of them. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon-Japan Japan-France Memorial

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

This is a revamp of a previously AfD-d page in March 2021. Author of the article was blocked on French Wikipedia, being confirmed as the same user/sock-farm that was responsible for the page's previous iteration. Toyota Impreza (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this is a definitely a real place which exists (there was some suggestion it was a hoax in the previous AfD discussion) - it has a website and a Google maps listing. However, it does not appear to be notable - I can find no independent coverage aside from the sources listed in the article (which are tangential at best, and hardly constitute significant coverage). The fact that this is a page that was previously deleted (and recreated by a sock) is also concerning, though not in itself grounds for deletion. — Jumbo T (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Morton

Lydia Morton (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. Only primary sources provided LibStar (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Given the previous AfD went to Deletion Review, I think it's appropriate to add some brief remarks about this close. First, upon reviewing the discussion, there unfortunately is not a lot of detailed argument on either 'side,' as I count a good majority of both 'keep' and 'delete' responses either offering minimal feedback ("It's good to have" or "fails policy") with little actual analysis.

The nominator's central argument is that the page, and its sister pages, are way too indiscriminate, that it functions as a directory, and that Viola repertoire is a better page for notable inclusions. There is no consensus as to whether that is an appropriate reading of the article and it's not for me as the closer to impose my own view. The primary sentiment from Keep !votes is that the article meets WP:NLIST and should therefore remain as-is. The nom argues this isn't responsive to their reason for deletion, but I don't think that's quite right. If the list is notable, the question becomes an editorial one of the best way to handle the information in article/list format. Given there is no consensus about how to resolve that here, I think this is the most appropriate close at this time.

Finally, given the discussion is starting to go in circles and has been relisted twice already, I don't think a third relisting would be fruitful. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions for viola: A to B

AfDs for this article:
List of compositions for viola: A to B (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)

Including:

Huge violation of WP:NOTDATABASE/WP:DIRECTORY! This should have never been kept at the first deletion discussion where the arguments for deletion were more numerous and the arguments to keep were fallacious. The presiding arguments to keep can easily be reduced to WP:LONGTIME and WP:USEFUL. However, Wikipedia does not need to (or should) fill the role that Music4Viola can do better.

I had created Viola repertoire to include notable inclusions (i.e., with Wikipedia pages or book/dissertation sources as the selection criteria) as pieces for viola do meet WP:NLIST (and a list could be more detailed than Category:Compositions for viola). However, redirecting the alphabetical lists of the compositions to the new page was opposed by the voters arguing keep of the last debate. When a list grows to over 10,000 entries filled with red linked composers, and the only sources are more directories that don't discuss a work in depth (in this case, Literatur für Viola) , it needs to be trimmed. Most of the pieces' top results on Google are this list.

Again, no prejudice against a Wikipedia list for viola compositions (when there are sources), but this needs a trim. In that case a suitable page, Viola repertoire, exists and can be renamed and expanded, and using the current "A–B" scheme as redirects would be unhelpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the closing comment on the previous nomination exceptionally poor. The lack of policy explanation by delete voters is cited as a reason to keep, but almost all of the keep votes are explicitly listed in WP:ATA. I'm gonna pre-emptively rebut all the terrible arguments made in the previous thread:
"It's been around for 15 years" --> WP:NOHARM, WP:LONGTIME
"It serves people learning the viola" --> WP:ITSIMPORTANT
"WP:LISTN says it's okay if it a list has been discussed as a set" --> WP:LISTCRIT tells you to use common sense, and explicitly gives the example of "List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." as an example of this common sense. BrigadierG (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme viola-nce. Far too WP:indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete twice for the excellent viola pun. Kazamzam (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been said above that Music4Viola serves the purpose better - of course not, because it doesn't have what Wikipedia offers: the links to the composers. It has been said above that Viola repertoire serves as an overview of pieces for viola, - of course not, because it misses the more interesting pieces, those without article yet. Of course the list is not needed, but the same could be said about any article, - they all are written voluntarily, and read voluntarily. I see no harm, but a great resource for a few. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's refute some arguments: Wikipedia offers links to composers. That's such an incredibly weak feature to the list when looking up a composer takes less than a few seconds by highlighting the name and clicking "Open In New Tab" where Wikipedia is the top result. It lists pieces without an article. Obviously, red links are important and such to grow the project, but they should only be made if there is a chance of an article. That means there must be a bare minimum of some source. Most of the pieces and even most of the composers fail even the criteria of that. A red link can be added to Viola repertoire with a basic citation to some book/dissertation. Something that shows the piece has been discussed. The same could be said of any article. See WP:OSE and WP:NOHARM. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a textbook WP:NOHARM argument BrigadierG (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Exact same reasoning as in the first nomination. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not indiscriminate per WP:DISCRIMINATE. This article has been assembled with care and provides a discriminate collection of information related to the topic (“works in which the viola is a featured instrument”). I believe that this article also adheres to the criteria for Stand-alone lists: WP: NOTESAL. Compositions for viola as a collection have been discussed by multiple sources, including the previously mentioned Zeyringer and Music4Viola (as well as other sources). Attempts have been made to improve the article by adding citations (one of the requests from the earlier Deletion review). Further citations from other sources can be added (and additional articles for individual entries can be created), but I have been hesitant to invest the time and effort for fear that additional deletion attempts would be made (that fear seems to be well-founded). The lack of links to individual pieces does not reflect on the notability of an individual work, just that the community has not yet had time to create individual entries for these works. I do not view deleting or trimming this article as a reasonable means of improving it and continue to see value in retaining this article in its current format. I also view Viola repertoire as a complement to this article, not a replacement. Dbynog (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)dbynog[reply]
    No, it's pretty indiscriminate when it lists a few thousand pieces by non-notable composers. The sources provided simply prove that pieces verifiably exist; it doesn't make a case for inclusion per WP:CSC. You'd also be hard pressed to create articles out of even a tenth of the pieces listed, and even then, Wikipedia does not use lists in the main space as "pages to be created" lists. Also, the essay WP:DISCRIMINATE is just plain wrong (and even then, a policy is stronger than an essay). I don't know why that essay exists when it literally says the opposite of what WP:INDISCRIMINATE says. (Edit: Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY still exists.) Why? I Ask (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I agree that notable pieces should be a part of Viola repertoire. No offence to any Viola players. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the previous AFD was the subject of a Deletion review, I'm going to be extra careful here and list the discussion for another week of debate or until an admin decides there is a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Meets WP:LISTN "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Compositions written for the viola have obviously been discussed a a genre of music. The list also acts as a navigation outline, as recognized type of list. The list has a definite and well defined criteria for inclusion.  // Timothy :: talk  11:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: I've already addressed WP:LISTN where Viola repertoire serves as a navigation list for pages that are actually on Wikipedia. There's no need for the larger A—Z list where links are far between, spread across over five pages, rendering the point about navigation moot (less than 0.4% of the entries on the A—Z page have links). Also, what list of criteria is there? Simply being a piece for viola is not a criteria. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The inclusion criteria seem a little loose; I'd restrict the list to composers who already have articles, but requiring each composition to be a blue link goes too far. But the fundamental concept seems solid. XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @XOR'easter I never said the pieces needed a blue link. I said a piece needs a valid citation that's not just a index of works. There's also no way that simply being a notable composer makes the pieces notable. Britta Byström or Georgy Firtich may be notable. Their one or two pieces for viola are not. We wouldn't have a list of works for orchestral works by notable composers for a similar reason. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notability" is about whether articles should exist, not about what should be included within an article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If something's notable, that means there's at minimum a source about it: at least one. In which case, a piece can be added to Viola repertoire because there's a source and it doesn't just verifiably exist. Find me a single good citation for In the Kitchen by Michiru Ōshima or For Maurizio by Gérard Pape. You won't; the first result is this list. And Wikipedia has more policies than just WP:NLIST. For example WP:LISTCRIT which explicitly says As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. There you go. If you can find me that half of the pieces by even composers with blue links do more than verifiably exist, I'll withdraw my nomination. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still not an argument to keep, though? I already said it meets WP:NLIST. My issue is that there's two pages that duplicate information. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be trimmed down per XOREaster's suggestion. It won't hurt. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed down to what? In this case there's already a suitable, trimmed article (Viola repertoire) that can be expanded. What selection criteria would you prefer? Why? I Ask (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far in the keep votes, we have several arguments that either completey fail WP:ATA or completely ignore the fact that citing WP:NLIST makes no sense given the nomination rationale. The first keep vote is, as one user notes, reduced to a WP:NOHARM argument, the next mischaracterizes WP:INDISCRIMINATE by saying that it's okay to use Wikipedia to list every piece of music for viola as they were "assembled with care". The last three votes again cite WP:LISTN which is literally, explicitly stated in the nom as not the issue. The last point of note is selection criteria. One user said it already had a well-defined selection criteria (it doesn't) and has not explained what that is. Another said using only notable composers would be fine with another agreeing saying "it wouldn't hurt" (great, another WP:NOHARM argument). That's better than what we have, but it's still not encyclopedic, because as I've noted, some pieces by small composers are so rare, this page is the first result when searching. I really hope the closing admin or future voters can be rationale because these reasons to keep frankly suck. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and that these lists dont really give us the insight they should.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ali

Mirza Ali (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)

Extremely vague article with no sources, barely any real biographical information, no further details in the Persian and Arabic language pages, no detail on this supposedly very impressive manual. Mirza Ali is also an extremely common part of many names - without further detail, sourcing and establishing notability seem unlikely. Kazamzam (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and unsourced material is also concerning. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Habib

Ryan Habib (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 cannot find anything about this swimmer. The COMEN Cup was a swimming event for 13-15 years old. If he was a senior national champion, maybe that makes him notable but there is no information about the particular event. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_13