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!} 23:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not seeing enough in the article or elsewhere to pass WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems it is being worked on by the publishing editor. Sources appear to be WP:RS. Archives908 (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At about 100 total citations, this looks far short of WP:NPROF C1. No sign of reviewed books for WP:NAUTHOR, or of any other notability. The sources in the article appear to be profiles from organizations the subject is affiliated with, or press releases. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's this [1] and many others in the same Armenian Weekly that briefly mention him, but that's about the extent of it. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Athletics at the 1951 Pan American Games – Men's hammer throw. I want to close this discussion even though a consensus hasn't established a decision on the optimum redirect target. If the option I chose is unsatisfactory, please discuss it on the redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Melcher (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)

Melcher finished last among those who competed in the hammer throw at the 1952 Olympics, thus fails WP:NOLYMPICS. No WP:SIGCOV is presented in the article as required by WP:SPORTBASIC. Also fails WP:GNG - no SIGCOV found. Cbl62 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Athletics at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's hammer throw - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has won a medal at the 1951 Pan American Games. He also won a medal at the 1952 South American Championships in Athletics. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no sourcing for this. Moreover, medaling at these regional games is not a basis for notability. Unless you can provide SIGCOV of Melcher, our notability guidelines require that this article either be deleted or redirected. Cbl62 (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for the 1951 medal is here: - Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, User:Enos733. However, WP:SPORTBASIC mandates that we have SIGCOV present in the article for sports bios. The link is just a passing reference with this one sentence: "The last Chilean to take a medal in this event was Arturo Melcher, who took bronze in 1951." Without more, this should still be either deleted or redirected. Cbl62 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unfortunately not seeing any additional coverage to establish notability. Participation in Pan American Games and Summer Olympics presents two plausible redirect places, it's not clear which is more relevant. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics, by far, surely. Ingratis (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, because while he was only a participant at the Olympics, he medaled at both other games, which were still rather major, though not at the level of the olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chile at the 1952 Summer Olympics? Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or Athletics at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's hammer throw, as above. However, I think Eddie891 has a good point,so perhaps Athletics at the 1951 Pan American Games – Men's hammer throw is the best option. Ingratis (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A search of various news databases only brings up a single line mention in Lexus Nexus in a Spanish article which suggests that someone with his name coached a younger pole vaulter. It's not sigcov, or even clear it is the same person. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirei board (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. None of the Google search results have in-depth coverage of the product. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it only seems to be talked about in passing [2], for example, says it was used in a renovation. That's about the extent of it. I imagine it would be described in a renovation text book somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Came her from the cat:nn board. I would have sent to Afd as well. No effective references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted by PROD so Soft Deletion isn't appropriate here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Saw this at the Wikiproject Agriculture alerts. Not seeing any sources of significant coverage, and it appears it's just a brand name for a type of particle board by the company that sells it. KoA (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Also nominated:

• Qalbi
• Psychosophy
• Thrombohemorrhagic event
• Egersis

Previous AfDs closed as "Transwiki". Since Wiktionary no longer accepts Transwikis from Wikipedia, that decision is no longer valid and a separate discussion is needed to delete these leftover stubs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To be clear, I am suggesting we delete all five of the nominated articles. They are either dictionary definitions or translations of common words and phrases in English and amount to a dictionary definition. All of them were previously discussed at AfD and consensus was to transwiki them to wiktionary, but as that is no longer an option, the issue still remains of what to do with what's here on Wikipedia. I think the intent with the previous AfDs was that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for these articles and that they should be moved to a more appropriate place. Being unable to move them to a more appropriate place does not remove the fact that Wikipedia is still not the appropriate place for these articles; that fact remains unchanged. Per WP:DICTDEF I think these should be deleted; I don't see these being able to be expanded upon in any meaningful way beyond what little is already there at each of these articles. Psychosophy has some content there but it's just "here's what the word means and here's some examples of the word being used by people" and does include this rather amusing error "The American teacher Scott Hamilton has trademarked the United States for his contemporary school of psychology" It's rather impressive that he was able to trademark the United States, but that doesn't indicate appropriateness for the term on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialblood (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 can't find enough significant, third-party coverage to establish notability for this company. There's lots of churnalism and press releases but very little of substance.

The app appears to have been defunct for a little while, though the founders recently pledged to get it back up and running. This doesn't impact notability but may be of relevance to those looking for sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Technology, and India. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What little I could find about this app and/or the company behind it is not reliable sourcing (the line between the app and the group behind the app is often blurred in sources such as this, which I want to stress is a contributor piece which wouldn't be a reliable source even if it wasn't written by Socialblood's founder, but it's non-independent anyways so the point is moot). Outside of database listings (usually pulling directly from app APIs with no context) and a sprinkle of funding mentions, there's no coverage of this application in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; it fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "AfD it" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - indeed, a B-grade film, but not a non-notable one IMO. Sources added, including from one from India Today. The film was released in 2000, and sadly there isn't much information available from those days anyway. Box-office numbers also exist, from Box Office India. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing now is much better than it was and includes an article from two years after the film release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing vote to delete. Reason: did ctrl-f "Daku" and found three about Daku Maharani, one about Daku Dilruba and one about this film. At first, I thought all were about this film. DareshMohan (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The current three trivial refs does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM at all. BFI inclusion is a database, ref 2 mentions the film in a one short paragraph, almost all being quotes (no critical commentary), whereas ref 3 is a database entry on its box office, and even if that's high, fame isn't synonymous with notability. Currently, I strongly oppose keep. Responding to previous keep comments- The sourcing now is much better than it was and includes an article from two years after the film release- we have three refs, two are databases, and the "article" is a trivial mention. Notability per WP:GNG at least requires two or more significant, independent, reliable refs, this is obviously not met. Per Shshshsh's comment, [sources] added, including from one from India Today. The film was released in 2000, and sadly there isn't much information available from those days anyway, if that's indeed true, it supports that the film is not notable. WP:BEFORE search found a couple of books with one hit, not much else. Though, like previous AfDs, I'd wish that Shshshsh could find more refs and rescue the article, though, until then the keep comments assert that routine databases and trivial mentions meet any notability criteria, though, we might need to respectfully disagree, like previous AfDs, on whether this meets notability criteria. Many thanks again to the nom and Shshshsh in the attempts to rescue the article (even if I obviously disagree), and please ping me if more refs are found! VickKiang 23:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "AfD it" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Can't find any reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2022 (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!} 23:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as yet another defective Shshshsh deprod. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "AfD it" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite the presence of a big star, there are no reliable sources. DareshMohan (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2022 (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!} 23:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as yet another defective Shshshsh deprod. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Utah State House of Representatives District 53 election (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)

Only WP:ROUTINE coverage for this typical, non-notable state house election. I was going to WP:BLAR this to a parent article about the 2012 Utah state house elections in general but it turns out even that doesn't exist, so delete. eviolite (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Utah. eviolite (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would have recommended the same, but without that we don't need articles on individual state legislative elections. Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage. Azuredivay (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Corcoran (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)

Individual does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. Loss of a local election, and semi-frequent TV appearances giving political opinions appears to be the extent of her notability. While a WP:BEFORE search does return many results regarding Corcoran, the vast majority of these are passing mentions of a semi-controversial opinion that she has (say something controversial -> get reaction -> article) and are non-notabile in nature. Skipple ☎ 19:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Women. Skipple ☎ 19:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Considering her "opinions" keep getting covered by the media, I’d argue that WP:GNG is met here and I think she'll probably end up becoming the ginger Katie Hopkins. However failing that I’d suggest a redirect to 2021 Thurrock Council election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRItoday (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that nominator is left-wing, and nomination may be a result of WP:COI and WP:BIASED MRItoday (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I resent this borderline personal attack. It has no basis in reality nor evidence to back up this claim on my biases and personal political opinions. My nomination has nothing to do with the individual's political opinions, rather her lack of notability. Skipple ☎ 20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User MRItoday indeffed for disruptive editing. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep her commentary and opinions receive constant in-depth coverage in media, which suggests that Corcoran meets WP:BASIC. – Meena • 20:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Meena: could you cite that in-depth coverage, please? Innisfree987 (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Innisfree987: No sarcastic comments please - this is a deletion discussion, not a playground. Thank you.MRItoday (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? It’s standard to ask for references at AfD, as WP:SIGCOV is a decisive factor. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful if whoever strikes out a comment or !vote could indicate why this was done and by whom. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I'm capable of admitting that there is clearly a majority of delete votes here but I'd suggest to have her redirected (with protection if this becomes neccessary). I created this article in a good condition and removed it from my watchlist shortly after due to the influx of edits. It has since become trash. Redirect it and allow for a creation in the future when she meets more notability guidelines than WP:BASIC. – Meena • 09:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Meena: for clarification, where are you suggesting the redirect point to? Skipple ☎ 13:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Skipple I propose she is redirected to 2021 Thurrock Council election, where she is listed, with a historical redirect tag on the redirect. I didn't get your ping btw, as the signature must be in the same edit as the ping for it to work. – Meena • 18:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Appearing on Good Morning Britain once to talk about some personal beefs, and writing an opinion piece and being quoted for her opinion is not notable coverage. In college in 2022, the subject failed to win after running for president of her university's student union, which is also unremarkable coverage. Notability of the subject clearly has not been shown via sources that are mentions by the media and not extensive coverage. The Wiki page appears to be promotional. Fails to pass WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete agree with above, not much found beyond her giving an opinion on xyz subject. Nothing of substantial length about her as a person. This is about the best that mentions her, and it's a short few sentences [3]. The NZ Herald is a RS, [4] but it seems tangentially about her, more talking about a rejection letter she got. This in the Guardian [5] is sort-of about her. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But the NZ article also appears in the Daily Mail, so I'd discount it as a source. It feels click-baitey with all the ads that show up before and after the "article" Oaktree b (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage to meet GNG. Her failure to win a local council seat does not meet NPOL. Cowlibob (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, including per AuthorAuthor and WP:PROMO, because reports about, e.g. her viral Tweet about a job rejection letter that included chicken puns, and her allegations of bullying, do not provide much independent depth to support WP:BASIC notability. The Guardian does not add much secondary context, e.g. "a maverick rightwinger with an already significant profile on GB News and talkRadio [...] A slip recently, where a separate account replied as if they were her, suggests that her online profile may be a group effort – not exactly a sockpuppet account, since she is definitely real; more of a sock chorus." The WP:REFBOMBing in the article, e.g. [6], seems to further emphasize a lack of sufficient support for notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the article edit history, including as described in the comment by Meena about what happened after the article was initially created, as well as the noted sock activity, e.g. [7], may support the addition of some WP:SALT to the article title. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nommed. (I was expecting to find enough RS sigcov to satisfy GNG, but didn't.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaires' Row in Vilnius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pure original research. No reliable refences discuss "Billionaires' Row" in Vilnius. If the concept ever becomes accepted and popular as a tourist route, the article might be worthwhile. But right now, there is no such thing. Equivalent article in Lithuanian wiki was userfied for concerns of original research. Renata•3 19:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I purged a bunch of tangential content previously and hadn't gotten back to pull the rest. Especially if that content is removed, this article doesn't hold up. Imzadi 1979 → 19:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If this relates to a street with a lot of notable buildings, we might rename it to the street name. The present name is WP:OR, but the notability of the area need not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Clearly all these buildings should have articles of their own per WP:GEOFEAT (as several of them already do) and the streets are probably notable enough to have their own articles - Antakalnio gatvė and Tado Kosciuškos gatvė - but the current article is invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has been around 16 years and hasn't managed to find a single source. The concept is so nebulous, that it doesn't make sense as a stand alone article. Much of it is simply pointing towards notable topics. Actually, all of it. It's more of a list that isn't a list than an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the article lacking sources and not indicating why its subject is notable. The article also fails WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Dies In This Elevator (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 podcast that does not seem to meet WP:GNG. The references listed are not notable/reliable, and a Google search didn't turn up anything. It did win some awards but from a ceremony that is not notable. I don't see any proper place to merge so I think it should be deleted. Citrivescence (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All I can find are stories about actual deaths in elevators, nothing for a podcast. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the podcast is not notable. The only sources available are either unreliable or trivial mentions and the awards and nominations aren't enough to pass WP:WEBCRIT. There could maybe be a redirect to Alice_Wong_(activist)#Awards or just Alice_Wong_(activist) because the person appears to be the only notable subject connected to the podcast, but I'm not sure it's really warranted considering Wong won an award for a supporting role rather than the lead role. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find a few things, like coverage of his suspension from football and passing mentions in match reports. But there's nothing substantial. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IAR/COMMONSENSE; 74 appearances in England's professional leagues, plus international appearances, plus a significant non-league career. You're saying there is no coverage? I say you haven't looked properly. GiantSnowman 21:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some coverage from a very quick (literally 3 minutes) Google search - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - plus all the stuff there will be on the newspaper archives from the pre-internet days! GiantSnowman 21:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per everything above. Besides the sources GiantSnowman found, I found 9, 10,

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, among many many more sources from newspapers.com, lancashiretelegraph.co.uk, lancs.live, theboltonnews.co.uk, etc. Having had an extensive fully pro and international career during the 1990s-2000s, there are definitely offline sources as well. Clearly is/was significant figure in English lower league as well as Saint Kitts and Nevis football. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have performed a HEY. Still needs a lot of work, but he is notable without question. Sportsfan 1234, I would ask that you take another look at the sources and withdraw this nomination. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Massive WP:BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The refbombing has produced source after source where Lutel James is briefly mentioned and heavily quoted. Dougal18 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found 18 and 19 and 20, which states "James in his day was a leading and highly-sought striker for clubs such as Altrincham, Accrington Stanley and Guiseley. He also played in the Football League for Bury". We have found 20+ sources which isn't a small amount, and on top of that he has many many more sources from newspapers.com, lancashiretelegraph.co.uk, lancs.live, theboltonnews.co.uk, as well as other websites, etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another brief mention, a copyright violating video and a couple of paragraphs. Dougal18 (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James has eight mentions on the first source... Das osmnezz (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Financial incentives for photovoltaics (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)

Wastes the readers time and very wrong as it is so out of date. We are late 2022 now - as far as I know solar no longer needs financial incentives as gas power is so expensive Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except in places like India where grid power is itself subsidized for households, and rooftop panels are incentivized to compete with grid power subsidies Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (1) If something is no longer used, but was notable, it is still notable per WP:NTEMP. (2) A 2022 article clearly states that Financial incentives, such as rebate programs, are widely used to promote the adoption of residential solar photovoltaic systems.[8] (3) In California, in particular, the subsidies are still enormous: the utilities are obligated to buy back the rooftop electricity at full retail rate (essentially forcing customers without solar to pay for the grid upkeep, overhead, profits, etc.), see [9], for example. --Викидим (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK I accept your point (although I am denied access to www.sdge.com) as I don't know much about the US. I was considering the subject from a non-American perspective. If someone says they will bring the US section up to date I will withdraw this delete request. Maybe the US incentivizes US made panels to bring the cost down to that of imported Vietnamese panels? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject is notable and there's coverage in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. The issues presented are all surmountable problems fixed via editing, not deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Surmountable but will anyone surmount them? If not the article is useless and wastes readers time Chidgk1 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like the text of WP:PROBLEM rebuts that point better than I can. The best, quickest, and most direct way to handle those issues if they are a concern to you is to make improvements to the article yourself, but deleting the article is not an answer to the problems presented. - Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being out of date is a recurring state for uncounted articles. We certainly don't respond to that by deleting them. Sooner or later they get updated; if it's later, there's the appropriate template message to warn the reader that the material is not current. Also, notability is not transitory, and an overview of past RE incentives is in itself a notable topic. Needs work not removal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meta (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - This is a prefix with a variety of meanings, as is demonstrated by the content placed in this article which only discusses various different ways that this prefix is used. The only unifying principle for the content on this page is that it all uses the same word, i.e. a dictionary entry. We already have Meta (disambiguation) and each application of the prefix (i.e. Metaphysics, meta-ethics, meta-cognition) belongs on the respective page. - car chasm (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Retinalsummer (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If deleting, we need to choose a page to occupy the title. Meta Platforms may be the primary topic by usage but not by long-term significance. Meta (disambiguation) seems a good candidate. (Redirecting Meta to the dab would be wrong.) Certes (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "not a dictionary" clearly does not apply in cases where the content far exceeds what would appear in Wiktionary. Whether there ought to be that much content is another matter, but this page has existed for eighteen years, and has over eight hundred edits during that time, some by experienced editors whose names I recognize. I would be very reluctant to conclude that the contents do not belong on Wikipedia. If the content looks like it's poorly connected, perhaps some of it should be split off or merged into other articles. If the remaining core of the article is too brief to justify an independent article, then deletion or merger may be appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, it doesn't seem like any of the sources (apart from dictionary sources) are actually discussing "meta" itself. Rather, the article is made up of sources about meta-this and meta-that. Without sources for the overall perspective, we're getting close to original research. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong (and feel free to explain why you think so! I've been wrong before and would prefer not to be in the future!), but I'm pretty sure what you're saying here about the length of content is contradicted by the policy I quoted? - Here's the relevant section. And though I think there is certainly content on the page that could belong in other places (and may or may not be there already), I don't think the length of time an article has existed or who has edited it have any influence on whether or not a page is appropriate - I certainly don't think "hey, is this even a single article or a WP:CHIMERA" on every article I edit and would not expect others to do so. But this article was on the backlog of articles that have never been assessed for importance by WikiProject Philosophy after the template was added, I'm not surprised to have found a few (much less than 1% of them) are dictionary entries or other non-encyclopedic topics that fell through the cracks. - car chasm (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we're talking about simple length—the explanation at "Not a Dictionary" refers to numerous things that might naturally occur in a dictionary entry. This article contains a lot of discussion that wouldn't be found in Wiktionary. The more applicable subtopic of the policy might be WP:WORDISSUBJECT. However, I agree that this article looks a bit like a chimaera and should probably be split and merged into multiple articles. Whether there's anything left at the end is another matter—but the simple fact that this article has been around for as long as it has, and received as many edits as it has over that time, while not proving that it ought to be kept, does argue that we ought to think very carefully about whether there is something that could be salvaged as an article—or whether this should be redirected to the disambiguation page, which would at least preserve its very considerable history. P Aculeius (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG and the article is clearly not a dictionary entry.★Trekker (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, to the extent that the article seems to discuss several notable topics—but as Carchasm points out, it's a bit of a chimaera, and perhaps its content would be better split and merged among multiple articles. I'm not sure whether there will be enough left to support an article at this topic when that's done, but I think it's worth the effort for the reasons I mentioned in my reply above. P Aculeius (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly satisfies GNG. The article is clearly not a dictionary entry but a well-researched piece worthy of an encyclopedia. Rustytrombone (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is not a list of unrelated meanings for a term, but rather a detailed exposition of a cluster of related meanings tied to an underlying abstract concept. It could use expansion (maybe with citations to Douglas Hofstadter and other philosophers interested in logic and self-reference) and probably clarification or restructuring, but it is a notable topic and clearly more than a dictionary entry. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG and is not a dictionary entry. -Object404 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Unitarian Universalist Association. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evensong (Unitarian Universalist Association) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I found the primary source proposals for this religious program, which I added to the article. However, I can find no other sources. I see no notable, verifiable content worthy of merging anywhere. Daask (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Evensong. This seems to be an adaptation of the Anglican liturgical practice. Will try to find additional sources to flesh it out there, but they'll probably all be non-independent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with [[Evensong]] as not enough content and coverage for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Evensong. I agree its an adaption. desmay (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Evensong. I agree with others that this is an adaptation that is not notable in its own right. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on notability grounds. Do not merge with Evensong - only superficially related. Thparkth (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Unitarian Universalist Association as it's their program. Manannan67 (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Unitarian Universalist Association per User:Manannan67. This appears to be the most logical place for a passing mention. Skipple ☎ 17:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Unitarian Universalist Association instead of my earlier target of Evensong as the association page seems more appropriate, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Another "30 under 30" BLP article with the usual mix of dependent sources, sources about various businesses and not the subject, routine announcements, inclusion in lists, and non-notable awards. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. FalconK (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. FalconK (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Advertisement, yes. Notable? Yes. Could be deleted and recreated in an encyclopaedic tone. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep more than enough sourcing from the Vanguard News, which I think is a reliable source from previous AfD discussions, that's about all I find though. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest revisiting this? The two Vanguard News citations are both interviews. FalconK (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the adequacy of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per past WP:OUTCOMES. I read the consensus of the community as deleting articles about "30 under 30" living people, absent significant coverage outside the list. If I am wrong, please provide links. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per reasoning by Bearian. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Man was made to Mourn. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Man's inhumanity to man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, every use of a relatively common phrase or idiom is simply not content that belongs on an encyclopedia. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this should be deleted. - car chasm (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC) A suitable redirect target now exists that did not at the time of nomination, I believe it should be redirected there instead. - car chasm (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Outside of the "phrase defined" section that is literally a dictionary definition, the entire rest of the article goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as a "list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations". There could possibly be a legit article written on the phrase or it could be used as a Redirect, but as this current article goes against Wikipedia policy, it should not be retained for either of those possibilities to happen. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Man was made to Mourn per below - an article on the notable poem the phrase originated from now exists, so redirecting this there as a reasonable search term is acceptable. Rorshacma (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above. Retinalsummer (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite into prose. There's enough usage by notable people (MLK's use seems pretty compelling) that an article is reasonable. The dictdef and many of the attributions to not-themselves-notable speakers should be deleted, leaving us with an RS'ed commentary on The problem of evil. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't what you're proposing a violation of WP:NOR? We're not in the business of writing original commentaries on the problem of evil. - car chasm (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Writing? Not any more than we write text around RS'es attestation in any other field. Rather, we should appropriately collect usages of this term by notable people--a slightly less ambitious and more focused purpose than the article as it currently stands seems to be trying to do. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd recommend looking at WP:NOTDICT again - the project you're describing, "collecting usages of this term by notable people" is explained in the sections Not Size and Wikipedia is not a usage guide. If, on the other hand, you can point to reliable sources that collect usages of this term by notable people, analyze them, and provide a synthesis, those would constitute secondary sources. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia would then be able to cite those secondary sources as they would constitute significant coverage of the topic. If no such secondary sources exist, then wikipedia should not have an article on this. - car chasm (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you had done a proper WP:BEFORE a quick perusal of Google Scholar would have identified that enough material to build an appropriate article exists. I'd recommend focusing on your own responsibilities before trying to educate me about mine. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did do a bit more than a quick perusal - there are a few articles that use the idiom in their title or subtitle (as it is a common idiom), an article that is a copy of this wikipedia page, and one single article from 2010 that uses the idiom in its title and includes a brief discussion of the idiom itself for one paragraph. I would not consider that WP:SIGCOV. - car chasm (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See reasons below. We might move the most notable information to a section in the Robert Burns article. Otherwise, just delete.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this article is currently in flagrant violation of WP:NOTQUOTE. I think, however, it would be easy to reformulate into an article about Burns' poem "Man was made to mourn" and include mention of the line itself in a subsection, something I'd be happy to do if the AfD reaches that consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have found coverage to indicate the poem is notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm struggling to see how this article could be reformulated to be about the broader problem of evil, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, [10] p. 159 does give some attention to the concept. But I'm not sure this is the page for it... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Special:Permalink/1111460693 is the beginning of what I'd envision a rewrite looking like. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a bit of a description in there. The distinction exists, however, between the poem's notability and the quote's notability. As it stands, this article seems like someone went looking for trivial usages of the phrase, many of them from non-notable people, and then compiled them into a Wikiquote article...on Wikipedia. A quick look at Category:Quotations shows that, while there are many listed, most of them are redirects to main pages, with possibly a section devoted to the quote.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Carchasm, did you look at the rewrite I suggested? The article could be reverted to that and moved to Man Was Made to Mourn pretty easily. I think that Burns' article is somewhat too long for a merge to be feasible. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  meant to ping Augusthorsesdroppings10 Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that Category:Quotations was being automatically populated from {{r from quotation}}, which I've just switched off as a bad idea. But Category:Redirects from quotations still illustrates Augusthorsesdroppings10's point here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks good. Still if even famous quotes like damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse, or if it doesn't fit, you must acquit get only sections in the articles describing their events... Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article has been improved by Eddie891. I'm making an article on the poem Draft:Man was made to Mourn, so perhaps this can be merged into that eventually. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Redirect. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any problem with merging the new content into Man was made to Mourn, but is there any particular reason we need the redirect or the page history for this article? If we're already rewriting the whole article from scratch just to merge it into another one... - car chasm (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think the redirect is useful: people searching for the quote should be directed to the article on the poem, which discusses the quote. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. - car chasm (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is just functionally the same result that I had hoped for in the end, so redirect to Man was made to Mourn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Similar to what I was saying, sounds good.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Now that a suitable target exists, WP:ATD-R seems appropriate, a redirect doesn't need to establish notability. - car chasm (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finalmente L’alba (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 fails WP:NFF as all sources are about casting and film starting production, but the production hasn't been proven to be notable. Should be deleted until release. Please note I have already created a draft before the creation of this article. The Film Creator (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Draft space until closer to release to reexamine its notability. BOVINEBOY2008 13:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Has been a stats stub for over 14 years and, despite playing a game for one of the biggest clubs in Albania, I can't find any significant coverage. I found nothing in Google News, likewise in ProQuest and only basic stats coverage in DDG. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC despite playing for Partizani Tirana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Spiderone's analysis, it doesn't seem this player meets GNG. I can't find any evidence of a further career, or any coverage to assert notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HomeCo. Armstrong Creek Town Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not finding evidence that the individual locations (to be listed below shortly) of HomeCo are notable per WP:GNG & WP:CORP. It may be possible that HomeCo itself, as an organization, is notable, after a brief source search, but these are all about individual locations. ASUKITE 13:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Australia. ASUKITE 13:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I am also nominating the following related articles:

HomeCo. Braybrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HomeCo. Box Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HomeCo. Ballarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HomeCo. Hawthorn East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of HomeCo shopping centres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ASUKITE 14:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nominator. None of these individual locations are notable to have their own article. Nothing to merge/redirect to either, as there is no individual article for HomeCo itself. Ajf773 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all all fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP/WP:NPLACE. Primary references and a mention in a bus timetable are hardly WP:SIGCOV. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I agree HomeCo itself might be notable, but each store location is not. TH1980 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as above. Note: HomeCo. Cranbourne should also be deleted if the above are deleted.--Grahame (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and delete the Cranbourne article too as per Grahemec - none of the articles seem to have any sort of significant coverage, so there doesn't even seem anything that could be merged into the local suburb articles. Deus et lex (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - as per nom and above editors. Nothing but routine local coverage, all fail GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Members of a chain of mini malls with strictly routine coverage. An article about the parent company might be interesting, while it's holdings are not. However, even that appears to come up short on WP:NCORP. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Adayev (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)

According to Soccerway, had a very brief career in the semi-pro third tier of Russia then disappeared. Appears to fail WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG based on sources cited in the article and due to the lack of coverage when searching in Google News and DDG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Komissarov (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)

An amateur turned semi-pro footballer that recently started playing in the third tier of Russia with no indication of notability. Nothing useful found in searches of Google News and DDG. Sources currently in the article also count for nothing in terms of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter explicitly confirms that database sources do not confer notability for sports biographies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not professional footballer, fails WP:SPORTBASIC. ZanciD (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgetown International University (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 significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. On February 8, 2018, the school was mentioned in passing in articles on the Barbados government web site and in NationNews, but no coverage has appeared in any of the major Barbadian news sites (e.g. NationNews, The Barbados Advocate, Barbados Today, Loop News) since the Washington University of Barbados scandal broke in October 2018 (several months after the national elections and change in government). Dubious claims made in the article about "accreditation". Cielquiparle (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, Caribbean, and Barbados. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there are no claims of accreditation made in the article text, despite there being a section with that word in the title. Being listed in comprehensive directories is not accreditation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've now removed the word "Accreditation" from the header (though the damage has been done and all the other wikis that republish Wikipedia content still have the word in there). Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria University of Barbados (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 significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. On February 8, 2018, the school was mentioned in passing in articles on the Barbados government web site and in NationNews, but no coverage has appeared in any of the major Barbadian news sites (e.g. NationNews, The Barbados Advocate, Barbados Today, Loop News) since the Washington University of Barbados scandal broke in October 2018 (several months after the national elections and change in government). Article creator and main contributor was a banned sockpuppet account. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, Caribbean, and Barbados. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also recommend possibly salting this article, as there seems to be some history here. CC:@Joseph2302 Cielquiparle (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Murphy Lee#Discography. RL0919 (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Zero reliable sources for over a decade and I couldn't find any coverage myself. QuietHere (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Missouri. QuietHere (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Murphy Lee#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also in support of this redirect (need to stop forgetting to say that) QuietHere (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saba University School of Medicine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Saba (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 just weird... it's an article that was started with a reference to a Yemeni university, that is still right there in place, but was then embellished with meta information about the Caribbean island. There is a single university on the latter, so there is no apparent point to a single-item list. The Yemen institution in turn doesn't have an article, and its name has pointed to the island's institution since 2009. I don't know how this would be salvaged in a meaningful way. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Yemen and Caribbean. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory, and also because the article is bad. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saba University School of Medicine per WP:G14. Both list items link to the same article. BilletsMauves^€500 12:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I initially thought what's the point of having an ambiguous redirect there, but then I realized the reason this exists - it's actually been linked from a navbox of North American university lists. There are several other similar redirects that point to subsections of articles instead. Likewise, these are now disambiguated. So someone might want to point List of universities in Saba (island) to Saba (island)#Education and health. At the same time, this WP:V abomination since 2017 is where I still think WP:TNT is appropriate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory. Shrikanthv (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saba University School of Medicine per WP:G14: If a disambiguation page links to only one article it should be changed to a redirect. It also applies to pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as lists). Privybst (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Shepherd (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 television producer. Completely unreferenced. Search finds nothing to support GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, no sources of any kind found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DankJae 22:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of red-haired characters cast as People of Color for film or television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A non-notable list which also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 3. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 07:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Film, Television, and Lists. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 07:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, search finds nothing to support this arbitrary list meeting GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Textbook example of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. BilletsMauves^€500 12:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial and non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This would make a fascinating essay somewhere, perhaps the nucleus of a thesis, but yeah, it doesn't belong here unless someone finds where an RS has already made this connection. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:POINTy thing done in the wake of a few folks mad about the live-action Little Mermaid having a PoC rather than the 'correct' type of white person. I will note the sandbox time spent on this was before the trailer release so I will AGF a little, but this does seem to be more of a 'call-out' list than a factual one. Nate • (chatter) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I doubt someone would need this list for anything, really. Asparagusus (interaction) 01:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with BilletsMauves, this is exactly the type of cross-categorization specifically mentioned in WP:NOTDIRECTORY as inappropriate, and I couldn't find any sources to support this type of list so it fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just too indiscriminate as far as data goes. It also dances around a general topic - that of race related controversy with film casting without actually addressing the topic, but that's more of an aside. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Can someone just close this already? We all know what it was designed to do (and such a thing isn't helpful to the project), and it wholly lacks any sort of citations. Snowball it already. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too specific of a list without reliable sources talking about this particular thing and per WP:POINT. (Mermaid mentioned above and some older reddit discussions I found). Skynxnex (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nonsensical directory article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C2Call GmbH (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)

of the sources, only 1 is useable (source 9) and even then, it is not significant coverage, it is just a press release. the article is also heavily promotional and probably should be blown up. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 07:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 07:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources are independent sources that provide significant coverage (the PCWorld source is dead and I couldn't find an archived copy, but I'm assuming it was mentioning a product possibly of this company, but not the company itself). The lede says it's a startup, it's probably WP:TOOSOON to have an article, let's maybe circle back to this one once it's actually started up and established so that we have more than press releases about it. - Aoidh (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The article's content is predominantly that created by the article's WP:SPA creator before they stopped editing after being reminded of the WP:COI requirements, and presents the firm's focus in 2008-12. Ten more years is probably too many for it to be called a start-up any more; the firm's current website, now at www.c2call.de/, indicates that their continuing operation is as a software development company for various clients. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an even stronger indication that it doesn't warrant an article if it's been that long and this is still the best we can do by way of sources. - Aoidh (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is presenting the company's proposition in 2008-12, with a focus on their FriendCaller app, whose parallel article is also at AfD, and with references which are predominantly their product announcements of that time. Crunchbase indicates that the CEO named in the article moved on in 2013, though he is still shown as CEO on their website. The company continues as a software developer for clients from whom notability can not be inherited, and searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FriendCaller (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 either primary sources, obscure blogs, and one techcrunch piece, which WP:RSP recommends is less useful for determining notability. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 06:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 06:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article by a WP:SPA account who created and extensively edited this and the associated article on C2Call GmbH before being reminded of the WP:COI requirements. The article is references to a mix of download sites and PR-triggered coverage: the 2012 TechCrunch piece starting "Hey, remember FriendCaller?" and describing it as "a Skype alternative which, let’s face it, we haven’t heard much from in years" is hardly coverage demonstrating attained notability for this product and my searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lettherebedarklight is spot on and I agree fully with their analysis of the sources, including the WP:TECHCRUNCH bit. Even if Techcrunch were a good source, it's only one source and WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, not one questionable source. Notability has not been established and the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not pass WP:NFILM. Found one review here but does not look reliable. PROD removed with no improvements. DareshMohan (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. no sources in article except an external link to imdb, which is not reliable. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 07:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable as far as I could tell, which was why I proposed deletion for it. Not sure why Donaldd23 removed it, as they did not make an argument for keeping, just to send it to AFD. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I have not been able to find even date-specific newspaper coverage of the film, let alone anything significant and reliable. A few of these TV-films I have looked into previously tend to have some barely-acceptable coverage, but not seeing that here. An article which has existed for ~14 years may not be uncontroversial when considering deletion, which could be why the PROD was removed, though consensus always wins out. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Literally all I can find here is a very short blurb in Gerald Pratley's A Century of Canadian Cinema, which isn't enough all by itself — even on newspaper database searches to seek out 20-year old coverage that might not have Googled well, I still found literally jack spit. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Leaphorn (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)

Single sourced, in-universe fictography w/ no showing of notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The nominator failed to provide the analysis of the "single source", which seems pretty solid - a book chapter that contains dedicated discussion of the character in question. The book chapter's focus on the character is evident in the very title of the chapter ("Tony Hillerman's Joe Leaphorn and Jim Chee"), although admittedly, the chapter title was not included in the reference in the article. Still, the nominator likewise gave no indication of carrying out WP:BEFORE, and if we have an academic, in-depth book chapter, the odds are decent this is notable and one more source can be found (and, surprise, suprise, a one second glance at GScholar results does indeed confirm that yes, he is almost certainly notable, appearing in titles of several works there). Per BEFORE, the nominator should carry out a search and tell us whether they found no other source, or why sources that appear in GScholar and like are inadequate, and why the current (very solid at first glance) is not sufficient. Lastly, a redirect would be much better here then outright deletion, given the existing source. Final note: assuming this is kept, the 90% plot summary that constituts the article should be summarized/shortened or just deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Single, source, not-notable, just really obsessive and lengthy. Yuchitown (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the article definitely needs a ton more citations, Joe Leaphorn is an extremely famous fictional character whose notability is easily proved. I did a quick JSTOR search and pulled up 74 academic articles referencing the character (and there are even more popular news articles referencing Leaphorn). So yes, while the article needs a lot of work the subject is definitely notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NYT coverage from this year? Check. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No references whatsoever. Does not meet WP:CORP. The prevailing argument in the 2009 AfD is laughable by today's standards. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article on a manufacturing company, whose website disappeared after June 2017, though I am not finding any associated takeover or liquidation coverage. The article largely consists of something like a catalogue listing of their products; the keep arguments in the 2009 AfD are not persuasive (including the link to a routine commercial announcement); fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They have a fancy logo, so we have to keep them" is not a keep reason. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per above. If the company doesn't even have a website themselves that a primary source would come from, I doubt a good secondary source will pop up, especially after all these years. There's a primary sources tag on it, but the fact that it now has no sources makes it hilarious. Asparagusus (interaction) 01:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There's no coverage, and regarding the prior AfD, however ubiquitous their machines may have been is just a big number, not an assertion of notability. While this is not a comment regarding the notability of the subject, I just want it on the record that I very much disagree about their logo: it is not fancy. - Aoidh (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anu K Aniyan (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 minor, non-notable actor, with WP:GNG obviously failed. The current refs are obviously routine, more are from Times of India, a situational ref on WP:RSP. Yes, he was a lead role for a web series with a WP article, but that article, Thera Para, has been AfDed with the result of merging, so it fails the NBIO criteria The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. There are also trivial mentions in other RS, 1, 2 on cast details, but they are not SIGCOV at all, and this fails WP:GNG or WP:NBIO IMO. VickKiang 05:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. No evidence of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't seem to meet NOTE Mr.weedle (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Limited participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State Road, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod removed with the summary "Article has sources and information". The information is about the location of a former highway rest stop. The sources 4 or 5 describe the rest stop in the area yet neither even mentions a "State Road". 2 and 6 are just maps that mark the location, but neither these nor my search results indicate that this location is a community, notable or not. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While it may not be a cohesive community, this is an important location from a transportation standpoint. As mentioned in the article, State Road was formerly an important rest stop on the intercity bus network and also formerly had a train station along what is now a freight-only railroad line. In addition, State Road is an important highway junction. It is currently at the junction of US 13 and US 40 and the location formerly served as the southern terminus of US 202 and the northern terminus of US 301. The construction of I-95 and the relocation of intercity bus service to Wilmington have diminished the transportation importance of State Road but historic importance still matters. Dough4872 13:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So the article needs to be renamed and totally reworked. "State Road is an unincorporated community", the use of Infobox Settlement, its navbox, and categories are all wrong. Neither rest stops nor highway junctions are typically notable topics. "Important highway junction" is awfully subjective with thousands of them in the country! Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly, I'll have to go with delete. The only substantial discussion of Clemente's (which everyone who rode Greyhound or Trailways through the area from the fifties through the eighties is too well aware of) I could find was this blog post, which begins by saying "One piece of transportation history that seems to be in the process of being completely forgotten is the Clemente Travel Center, also known as “State Road” in New Castle, Delaware." He also describes the latter as a "locale", which is more in my experience: there has never been a settlement around it. I could find no corroboration of the place as a settlement, and while there's probably an Arcadia book somewhere that talks about Clemente's, searching didn't immediately turn one up. Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An idea might be to merge the information about the bus rest stop in State Road to the transportation section of the New Castle, Delaware article, since it is the nearest town and mailing address for the State Road area despite the fact it’s outside the corporate limits. Dough4872 21:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Found this news feature on Clemente Travel Center, which describes it as being "at State Road": Stewart, Ann (July 28, 1987). "Boss still buses tables at bus terminal". The Morning News. Vol. 108, no. 105. pp. B7 – B8. part 2. Another article on the fate of the building from the same paper here. Social notices from 1921 editions of a paper reference a "State Road Community Club" and numerous people living "at State Road" in the vicinity of New Castle. This references another club, and this references a "State Road Chapel". This suggests the State Road Community Club was founded in 1921, and mentions a "State Road school". There was also a State Road Community Hall. This article discusses state police revamping their radio antennae in the locale. There was clearly more here than just the travel center, but if it's notable, I don't know. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of opinions but no consensus on what to do here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Days (magazine) (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)

Seven Days (magazine)

Article on magazine that does not satisfy magazine notability or general notability. Created in article space, then moved to draft space by User:Hey man im josh as not ready for article space. Then created again in article space by originator. The draft has now, reasonably, been cut down to a redirect to the article, but the article does not establish notability.

A check of the references shows that none of them provide significant coverage of the magazine. One is a passing mention. One is an upload of a page from the magazine to Commons. One is a lengthy report that does not appear to be related.

Draftification, with instructions to use the AFC review process, is a reasonable alternative to deletion, but the originator has already disagreed with that option. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and New York. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until the article is accepted at AFC. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am trying to fix an error on Wikipedia. There is a newspaper in Vermont called Seven Days, established in 1995. Many of the people who worked for Seven Days, the magazine that appeared from 1977 to 1979, inaccurately had links to that newspaper as there was no Wikipedia entry. The magazine masthead had a who's who of prominent socialists from the 1970s, many of who have Wikipedia entries. It was founded by David Dellinger of the Chicago Seven. I am merely trying to correct the misimpression left on the site that they worked for the Vermont newspaper. I admit there is not much online material that could quickly be found on Seven Days the magazine -- I noticed the error while reading the Wikipedia entry for Barbara Ehrenreich after she died this week. I hope to find more references and sources to build up the entry but in the meantime Wikipedia should not have incorrect links, should it? Thank you for your consideration. Congha2540 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Re the third reference, that was a famous interview, a big scoop, published by Seven Days. The reference to the interview appears on page 20 of the report with a citation to the magazine.Congha2540 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to David Dellinger, whom sources most often seem to mention as the founder and editor of the magazine.^[1][2][3] The poor state of sourcing presently in the article (primary sources and passing mentions) do not count towards notability, but current sourcing is not a criterion for deletion per WP:NEXIST. While the magazine appears to have had notable writers and editors, after searching newspaper archives and the Internet Archive I have yet to find significant coverage of the magazine itself that can't be easily added to an existing article or two as needed. A couple sentences—a paragraph at most—at David Dellinger is probably sufficient. Individual noteworthy accomplishments by contributors might be better presented at the authors' articles. Wikilinks to non-notable publications might simply be omitted, with the magazine explained in text if necessary (humans were able to read information just fine for centuries before the invention of hyperlinks). Searching for coverage of the magazine is hampered by its commonplace title, but for future reference it is also known as Sevendays and Seven Days Magazine. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the repeated confusion between this publication and the existing Seven Days newspaper, doesn't it make since to have a separate entry, even if it was limited? I'm not sure a redirect to David Dellinger would necessarily sold that problem and it could easily be missed by people. Seven Days was supposed to be a competitor to In These Times which still exists and has a Wikipedia page. In the pre-Internet age, there would not have been much coverage in mainstream media of socialist publications; now such a publication would gain notice with an active Twitter account. Given how Seven Days was a launching pad for many notable people, I would still argue it deserves an entry. I have been traveling but hope to build this up further. Congha2540 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The potential for confusion with other publications is not a notability guideline. If a topic lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, whether currently or in pre-internet times, then per general notability guidelines a stand-alone article is unwarranted. If other articles incorrectly link to Seven Days (newspaper), they can simply be unlinked and defined in context, e.g. "Joe Blow wrote for the short-lived socialist magazine Seven Days in the 1970s." Or, if Seven Days (magazine) becomes a redirect (e.g. {{R from work}}), the link will still work, and a sentence or two at the target article will give necessary context. For what it's worth, I found a somewhat more than trivial mention in a 1977 issue of Working Papers for a New Society (another short-lived leftist publication), but that alone doesn't demonstrate independent notability, and again I think any encyclopedic content can easily be distilled into an existing article, or simply mentioned in text. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a paragraph detailing how Seven Days published an article on the technology of hydrogen bomb, forcing the government to abandon its prior restraint case against The Progressive magazine. This was an important first-amendment case and I think bolsters the case for keeping this entry and not deleting it. Congha2540 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would a redirect or move to Draft space be acceptable to all? Also, please look at the recent improvements to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the recent additions are improvements, or any closer to demonstrating notability. It doesn't matter one bit how much we as editors think a subject should have it's own article. The Washington Post reprinting a portion of a Seven Days article is largely a Primary source and does not alone demonstrate the significance of the article in the broader Progressive lawsuit. Tying together disparate passing mentions and primary sources and synthesizing or inferring significance (e.g. implying that Seven Days was instrumental in United States v. Progressive Inc. when sources like this do not make the claim) risks original research, or at the very least, giving undue coverage to things before their time (if you were to write an article on the significance of Seven Days and get it published elsewhere, that would then provide a significant secondary source that an encyclopedia could summarize). We as Wikipedians cannot connect the dots that haven't already been connected, or tell stories that haven't been told. As an analogy, imagine a local news reporter or radio announcer in your hometown. The whole city may know their name, maybe they've written some popular or controversial articles and occasionally get quoted in national news. Evidence of their education, family members, and life events might be found in local newspaper clippings. All of this may be verifiable in reliable sources, and perhaps additional biographic info could be gleaned from public records, their Twitter feed, or digging through their trash, but when stung together does not demonstrate the subject has received significant secondary attention. An article can't just be a list of articles that have appeared in the magazine, nor a list of writers. I'm not against draftification, as there certainly is a possibility that substantial coverage exists somewhere, but a redirect would also allow for future expansion should sufficient sources be found. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fair point re the connection to the dropping of the Progressive case. The article cited the publication of articles in newspapers and I should not have assumed that the Washington Post article was one of those cited. Upon conducting more research, I see that the H-bomb article, intended to be satire, was later picked up by would-be terrorists and then CIA used their access to the article to justify the success of the torture program. I don't think this story can be adequately covered in a redirect to Dave Dellinger --since he did not write the article in question -- and I remain puzzled at the reluctance to accept an entry on this publication. Congha2540 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to David Dellinger as suggested above; I agree that the current sources do not demonstrate notability, but I think this redirect could be useful. Hatman31 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am hoping the additional detail on how the H-bomb article (not written by Dellinger) became a factor in Gitmo detentions convinces you that this entry meets notability requirements. Congha2540 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that was enough on its own, but that combined with the additions by Cielquiparle makes me think there's enough coverage to keep the article. Hatman31 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is noteworthy content regarding a single article (e.g. the H-bomb article), it can be mentioned at Binyam Mohamed or José Padilla (criminal). We don't need a whole article just to coat-rack individual articles that have a passing mention of the name "Seven Days". What I see here is the equivalent of taping newspaper scraps to a wall and calling it comprehensive coverage. As another example: say there is an elementary school in a notable town that has several notable alumni, but no reliable source has ever significantly covered the school (maybe it closed long ago, or was so unremarkable that it never got significant coverage). To scrape together an article that says little more than "X was an elementary school. In 19XX Joe Athlete attended. In 19XX Fred Business Mogul was a substitute teacher there. In 19XX Jane Hollywood attended, and in a 2005 interview said "I had great teachers there". In 19XX it appeared in the background of a fast food commercial by [notable company]. In 19XX it was one of 2 dozen county schools fumigated for termites." is what is called a WP:COATRACK article (the notable alumni or tangential events are the coats). An encyclopedia article should not resemble a scrapbook or bulletin board of loosely related facts. Encyclopedia articles on magazines should not be mere lists of articles or authors, but of course the magazine can be mentioned in other articles as necessary, wikilinks or no. And adding section dividers or textual padding doesn't make a subject any more notable. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. OK to keep now. Single best in-depth source identified by Congha2540 was the 1977 Working Papers for a New Society article. To satisfy WP:GNG, would also point to 1976 article in The Los Angeles Times and the 1979 Herald News article on Seven Days's role in the H-bomb parody article controversy (a topic which could probably justify having its own separate page with more detail). (The 1977 article in The New York Daily News is also helpful but strictly speaking it is mostly interview-driven (i.e., largely based on quotes from Dellinger and "according to Dellinger"), so not as helpful from an independence point of view. Several problematic sources (e.g. Daily Mail and NameBase) have been removed by multiple editors, and blatant copyvio passages (e.g. cut-and-paste from Washington Post and Guardian) have been removed. Yes, it feels like we're still missing some key sources for this article, particularly from books, but for now this is sufficient to keep the article, and in the meantime I might add a few more "passing mention" type sources with important details so I wanted to pause to point to the more substantive pieces of coverage. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I greatly appreciate the extensive editing and additional sources you have added. The entry is much improved. Thank you. I wonder why you removed all references to the H-bomb article becoming a factor in detention of alleged terrorists. It would seem relevant that the government took this seriously. If I erred in quoting from articles, it could at least be summarized, correct? Congha2540 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too much detail for a Wikipedia article about Seven Days magazine which appears to have closed by 1980. The actual H-bomb article controversy including its possible impact decades later is a huge topic that might warrant its own standalone article in the future, but it's too much detail in the context of this one. The magazine published hundreds of other important articles besides this. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, on second thought – a single sentence summarizing the fact that it caused everyone to mention the article and the magazine again decades later seems reasonable. But I also wouldn't overdo it. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following improvements. Mccapra (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per User:Animalparty. Coverage right now, including of the H-bomb stuff, is just not in-depth enough, and/or specifically focused on the subject. I'm a huge fan of us having all possible articles on publications--magazines, newspapers, journals, etc--but it's not here for this article. User:Congha2540, this just isn't helpful: it looks like you're beefing up the article hoping that sheer mass will lead to it being kept, but this had no secondary sourcing and doesn't prove anything. User:Mccapra, I don't see the improvements you're seeing--what sourcing took it over the hump? Drmies (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused why a primary source is not acceptable. The printing of the full Barbara Walters interview was important at the time but I have not had a chance yet to dig into the newspaper archive to see how much was written about it. Several people have improved on this entry and I am puzzled why a redirect to Dellinger would be considered preferable given the consistent confusion between this magazine and the existing Seven Days newspaper in Wikipedia. Congha2540 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congha2540, what? We work by way of secondary sources. If we didn't, you might as well summarize every story ever published in the magazine. Your "was important at the time" needs secondary sourcing, but that seems obvious to me. And that "confusion", you brought that up a number of times, but it makes no sense to me. If there were links to the wrong article, we correct that. That's all. So I'm not convinced there's "consistent confusion", and if there is, the solution is not to write another article but to correct the erroneous links. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing User:Cielquiparle's work, I'm changing to keep. Well done. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional coverage. If anyone wasn't quite persuaded by the three articles I mentioned perviously (Working Papers for a New Society, Los Angeles Times, Herald News), I've finally found "review" type articles assessing the magazine itself. Now cited within the article are a widely syndicated review by Tom Collins of Newsday in New York, and a very large feature and review by Alan Finder of The Record in New Jersey ("Will it shake the world?" Part 1 and Part 2, "A magazine of the Left"). Cielquiparle (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A non-notable computer operating system that does not pass the WP:GNG. None of the sources included in the article are viable, largely just being links to the creator's long dead website, and searches brought up no coverage at all in reliable sources. It seems to have already been deleted once via AFD way back in 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitix), but was re-created several years later and has sat here ever since. It could potentially be speeded under criteria G4, but since I have no way of knowing if this version is, in fact, sufficiently identical to the deleted version, I figured I should bring it here instead. Rorshacma (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sounds like a cool project that seems to have faded out. No evidence of notability now or in the past.Thparkth (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I also could not find any coverage at all, let alone WP:SIGCOV. The fact that the project was essentially abandoned in 2009 suggests there won't be any forthcoming. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Abdullahi Sumaila (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 fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NPOL. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for Royalty and nobility. Justiyaya 03:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• More info needed in the article, not cause for deletion as future events could possibly be added. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.12.120 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty Koo (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)