Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< February 05	February 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Greer

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

Single effective reference. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piece doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lisa Greer is not notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. 747pilot (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added in details about her work. In 2020 book has been reviewed by two publications (Stanford Social Innovation Review)^[1] and Alliance magazine;^[2] she won an award in 2017 which led to an article in a local publication on her and her work; ^[3] and she has spoken in multiple articles about philanthropy during the COVID-19 pandemic.^[4]^[5] DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Digital Bookshelf". Stanford Social Innovation Review. 19 (2): 71. 2021.
^ Seay, Angela (December 2020). "Book review: Philanthropy Revolution: How to inspire donors, build relationships and make a difference". Alliance. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
^ Coleman, Laura (August 25, 2017). "Robinson Gardens' Annual Gala To Honor Lisa Greer, Ellisa Bregman". Beverly Hills Courier. pp. 1, 15. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
^ Mento, MD (2020). "What Big Donors Are Thinking: Three philanthropists talk about their approaches to giving in the time of Covid, racial unrest, and economic devastation". Chronicle of Philanthropy. Vol. 32, no. 12. pp. 22–25.
^ Hanau, Shira. "Jewish philanthropists have increased their giving during the pandemic, but prioritizing causes has never been more difficult". sun-sentinel.com. Retrieved 2021-09-17.

Weak keep I don't see sources with depth about her that are also independent. There is the lengthy piece about her lawn in Beverly Hills, but that doesn't lend to notability. However, she has been honored for her work and clearly has had an impact in her area of philanthropy. It looks like the article has potential but doesn't exhibit it well. Lamona (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A *really* weak keep - she has published a book (with just a few reviews) and is on some committees, but the RS is really weak here. Seems to have made some contribution to the charity field.This is very borderline for me, and I may change my vote if other editors come up with good arguments. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Again, doesn't seem to warrant deletion, and it does have a few things going for it, everything seems to be sourced for instance. The lack of citations to major publications is the main issue, and this is really borderline GNG material. Nevertheless, I don't know that this needs to be deleted, if it was, it might be under TOOSOON though, as it seems likely that we will see more if her in the future. As an observation, I think I smell a "No consensus" closure on the way. Mako001 (C) (T) 11:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being sourced doesn't warrant notability. They are not connected in any way. Only the reference count and there is nothing here, apart from the book review which may be important. I'll check the references today. scope_creep^Talk 11:41, 7 February 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. Consensus is this isn't suitable for an article, and there isn't anything worth merging. If someone wants to work on this in draft space, just ask Star Mississippi 23:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity (data)

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

I don't see how this article could be improved to anything more than a dictionary entry, which is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. 4906h (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 4906h (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The nominator claims to be ignorant and unable to have vision, which is always worrying and a little more practice at contributions might help. I've never come across the term up till now myself, so perhaps I'm getting a little out of touch, but I could probably bluff a sales pitch for 20 minutes to the management on it if I had to without having read a word of the research. There's a risk this is a neologism, but big data is here to swamp us, and in the old days I think we used to say garbage in garbage out which probably is the gist of some of the same thing. Unfortunately not fit for mainspace in current state and would need to show a little better content and tone before fit for main space. I'f someone pumps the the article constructively I'd likely be willing to swing to keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This is obviously a cited blurb of meaningful content which should be merged into something else such as data integrity. — Smuckola (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we are not a dictionary, nor promoter of faddy neologisms. There was a proposal to merge into big data (which is not a proper noun, unless you are in marketing), but not really needed in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content worth merging. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with XOR'easter (talk). Nwhyte (talk) 01:08, 13 February 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locked Up: A Mother's Rage

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

I don't believe this minor TV movie meets WP:NFILM. The LA Times review is the only substantial review I could locate. The Radio Times review is less than 100 words, making it hardly significant coverage. A check of Google, GBooks, and Newspapers.com brought up nothing in the way of either contemporary coverage or retroactive commentary. One of the actresses was awarded the "Best Young Actress in Television Movie" award for the film at the 14th Youth in Film Awards, but I can't see any coverage of the win, so it confers no notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that the Radio Times review isn't significant coverage. No where in WP:SIGCOV does it state a word minimum. It says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The review is not only the main topic, but it is more than a trivial mention. Radio Times also meets the "reliable", "secondary sources", and "independent of the subject" criteria. Taken with the LA Times review, that meets the 2 review requirement of WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Donaldd23, NFILM specifies not just two reviews, but "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." 85 words is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a full-length review, and Joanna Berry (the RT "reviewer") is not a nationally-known critic. So the film does not in fact meet the two review requirement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what these discussions are for, to offer differing opinions and for an admin to take both sides into account and make their decision. You alone do not determine what is or is not a qualified review, as RT is a reliable source, and since the internet is world-wide, not local, anyone that RT publishes is, in-fact, a "nationally-known critic". Unless you are privy to a list of "acceptable" critics that the rest of us are not. So, I, again, disagree, and feel that this review does make it meet the requirements. And, as I stated before, "full-length" has no word minimum requirement. It is subjective. Maybe I think 50 words is ok. Others might not think 500 words is enough. All subjective. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most absurd interpretation of a notability guideline I've ever heard. Being published on the internet does not make one a nationally-recognized critic. You need actual name recognition for that, and if you want to claim that Joanna Berry has any, you need to provide proof. For all we know, Joanna Berry is an intern who got called in as a pinch hitter because her boss got sick one day. And the idea that you can communicate any depth of criticism in 85 words is ridiculous - especially considering that there was so little to say about this film that fully 25% of the length of the Radio Times blurb is dedicated to mentioning that Angela Bassett got an Oscar nom for an entirely different film. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Variety published a review in their publication in 1991. I don't have access to Variety's archives (maybe someone else does), but it was republished in a book of Variety reviews [1]. A free preview of the page it is on is unavailable, but as the free pages that are available one can easily tell that these are full reprints of full Variety reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it in book view for some reason - it's actually quite lengthy. It looks to be about 14 paragraphs long. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No significant coverage - doesn't reach WP:100W in any presented source. casualdejekyll 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, the addition of Variety here means I'm changing to a 'Comment. casualdejekyll 15:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we now have LA Times, Variety and other newspaper reviews added to the article since nomination. In discussions at Wikiproject Film nationally known critics has been defined as refering to critics writing for a high profile national publication or website, rather than individual status, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several reviews and also cobbled together a production and release section from what I can find online. It looks like it's gone under several different names, so that definitely made it harder to find sourcing. The impression I'm getting is that there's definitely more out there, it's just likely not as easily found online, assuming all of it's online at all. It looks like it was relatively heavily covered and for the most part, heavily panned. I get the impression it's likely based on a documentary with the same name as the working title that came out about a year earlier, but no solid proof of this anywhere. Also, apparently it had ties to HBO at one point according to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ozair Puda

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are interviews and profiles scope_creep^Talk 19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the page being nominated for deletion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.26.199 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notable sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 6 February 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population

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

There used to be these two now deleted articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. There are also articles for each ceremonial county in England on the same subject based on the same data set and they have the same problems. They have no sources outside the primary ones. The source of which doesnt even split them out by county (many of the areas cross county boundaries) so any county splitting is Original Research. They also use the word settlements which the source doesnt mention at all referring to them as built-up subdivisons. These aricles are misleading. Eopsid (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also Nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth pointing out that I (the nominator) created two of these articles List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population and List of settlements in Northamptonshire by population. Eopsid (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Beyond the sourcing question, these articles have generally not been substantially updated for several years, and the information in them therefore can not possibly be accurate, since population fluctuates year after year. There is no current prospect that these can be kept up to date for the indefinite future. BD2412 T 03:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep. I created a number of these originally. Those sources at the time did forward to a county specific list of settlements. What's not being realised is that there have been changes on the source website since and so now the data is not on the landing page anymore. But if you drill down into the website, the data can still be found. The banner above states we consider alternatives to deletion, simply locating and updating the references will correct the problem.

Case in point:

The current source for the Notts article is

https://www.citypopulation.de/php/uk-england-eastmidlands.php?adm2id=E10000024

That now redirects to

https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/eastmidlands/

Of course, this page does not have any Notts specific data on it

But there is a table with all the counties contained within the East Midlands

The new Notts link is there as

https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/eastmidlands/E10000024__nottinghamshire/

On this page it does refer to the table as a list of Settlements, and there is a status column explaining whether they are BUAs or sub divisions.

As to BD2412's concern about outdated stats, the census is done every ten years which are official counts, and anything outside of those is an estimate. 2021 was the latest census and so up-to-date figures will be imminent.

The Equalizer (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that interim data would be "an estimate" doesn't fix the speed with which periodic census data becomes outdated. If the updated title reflected "as of 2021" this would be more accurate, but I would still question the encyclopedic value of such a snapshot in time. BD2412 T 05:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think CityPopulation.de is a reliable source. It has too many Wikipedia-isms. This page in particular, https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/ just mirrors the deleted article discussed here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. I can tell this because the Office for National Statistics source on built-up area subdivisions which that webpage says it's based on, splits London up into multiple subdivisions but that page combines them, which was something that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population did. Eopsid (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found some old discussions which support my claim that CityPopulation.de is unreliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 235#citypopulation.de, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#citypopulation.de and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 164#citypopulation.de/ Eopsid (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eopsid, CityPopulation.de was used at the time because Nomis didn't have direct links to census area data in those days and the Neighbourhood Statistics census site which did was decommissioned. That London link seems to have been superseded by the agglomeration list https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/agglo/E34004707A__london so again I think site pages have been 'improved'. The data is now better accessible through a primary source, and Template:NOMIS2001 / Template:NOMIS2011 have been developed to take advantage of that, so it would be a matter of updating the refs.

BD2412, usually the article refers to the shortcoming of the census data in the prose of the articles, and estimates are really only given for main settlements (because the data is only provided to district level, but not towns/parishes/settlements as it's never been that granular. There is talk of using other gov data sources to create future censuses because of the expense https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51468919, that methodology is more in line with how estimates are created, but until that is accepted practice I personally think that decade long difference gives the best insight into the growth or not of a settlement and smoothes out any irregularities. But the articles are definitely notable as there will always be interest in what are the largest settlements.

The Equalizer (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NOMIS data doesnt split it out by county. So splitting it by county would be Original Research. The NOMIS data also doesnt refer to them as settlements but as built-up area subdivisons. Eopsid (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does show which counties the BUAs/BUASDs are within, maybe revisit how you use Nomis? And the ONS methodology notes do link these areas as settlements https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/characteristicsofbuiltupareas/2013-06-28#key-points The Equalizer (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesnt mention Built-up area subdivisions at all. I will have a deeper look into the NOMIS data to see if it does show counties. Eopsid (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me how you see counties for built-up area subdivisions? All I see when querying data is "built-up areas including subdivisions" which are split by region and there is a counties section but its local authorities not the ceremonial counties which these nominated articles use. Looking at the Local area report for the a couple of them I see no mention of county at all: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E35001516 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E34005056 Eopsid (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original ONS methodology document for BUAs and BUASDs is here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/census/lookup/built-up-area-user-guidance.pdf, which does describe BUASDs as settlements, but that argument is academic as BUASDs make up BUAs. When doing a query on the Nomis database, the maps show clearly the boundary of the counties and the BUA/SDs. --The Equalizer (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The maps are all based on Open Street Maps which isnt a reliable source, its basically another Wiki. Eopsid (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wiki too then - nominally unreliable as it too can be changed easily. Yet we are here fighting to make sure it's relevant and the best it can be. So too at OSM I bet. You haven't kept apace with developments, as well as the Nomis academics and ONS who I would expect to be very fussy how the census data is shown there, Wikipedia uses it as a base for their mapping service, and many well-known online aggregators and services use its geolocation or mapping service - OpenStreetMap#Popular_services. The bit that actually matters, the county boundary datasets is from the Ordnance Survey and regularly updated - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData. Simply put those businesses wouldn't be risking their reputation on a rubbish mapping product.

The Equalizer (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are the reasons for deletion. Neither 'outdated' nor 'needing improvement' are on the list. The sources used are not primary, they're secondary and tertiary, and routine calculations (ie adding output areas) are perfectly acceptable under WP:Synth. --Ykraps (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source some of them use is CityPopulation.de which I dont think is a reliable source. I dont think there are any reliable sources for settlements split out by county. Eopsid (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eopsid, at risk of repetiton Nomis does show what counties the built up areas and subdivisions are in. The Equalizer (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eopsid "Some of them use..." You cannot mass delete articles because some of them use! Request closure of this and reopen deletion requests for the some of them. --Ykraps (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry let met clarify. There are two sources these articles use. One is the census data on built-up area subdivsions itself (or urban area subdivisions which was they were called prior in the 2001 census data) and the other is CityPopulation.de which is based off the same data. Eopsid (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that the ONS stats are a primary source. They are not. The census forms are the primary source, which are collated, analysed and commented on by the ONS. This makes the ONS a secondary source. There also appears to be some confusion over original research. WP:OR is the synthesis of multiple sources, by Wikipedians. If a further source, not a Wikipedian, does this, it is not OR. If you think the source is unreliable, tag it and state your reasons (ie self-published). There are other sources available so there is no reason to delete all these articles.--Ykraps (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my mention of primary sources was irrelevant. The articles sources are using something called Built-up area subdivsions (which they've misleadingly referred to as settlements). When there are anomalies in the subdivisions Original Research has been used to mask it such as in List of settlements in Gloucestershire by population where they are using the population of a parliamentary constituency when the built-up area subdivision fails to provide population for a town. The UK wide version of these articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population) was deleted for similar reasons 9 years ago. The main original research masking back then was that there was no subdivision for London, so a number of them were combined together. I will open a discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard about the potentially unreliable source CityPopulation.de. Eopsid (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eopsid, utterly ignoring that ONS do link BUASDs to settlements, for which I provided the ONS methodology notes elsewhere in the discussion. Urban = built up = settled by residents. My response at the base of the page explains the logics of the mix of geographies - so find the relevant data and fix it. The Equalizer (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urban = built-up= settlements doesnt imply that subdivisions of said built up areas are settlements and anywhere that isnt a subdivision isnt a settlement. Eopsid (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that having (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population) deleted was wise, and I certainly don't consider it a valid argument for starting a mass deletion campaign against any article with a similar title. Your concerns regarding built up areas, which I don't endorse, are not relevant to every article and, as I said earlier, there are sources other than www.citypopulation.de available. These are articles that need improving, not deleting.--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other sources which aren't flawed thats why the UK and England wide ones were deleted Eopsid (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are! As has already been explained, the ONS figures are a reliable secondary source and routine calculations are permissible. In addition, local governments tend to produce their own figures. Here are the ones for Dorset, for example [[2]]. Regarding your concerns about BUAs/SDs, you can request moving the articles to Built up ares in..., or similar, but this really is semantics because a built up area is a settlement. Also, as I keep mentioning, your arguments are not relevant to every single article. If you wish to delete them en masse, you ought to have a reason that is common to all. I am not going to be drawn into an argument about the rights and wrongs of a previous deletion, and I don't think this discussion is going anywhere productive. We all seem to be repeating ourselves now so why don't we let this request run its course? --Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that Dorset page doesnt use the word settlements at all. Only parishes, towns, wards and unitary authorities, it would be useful for a List of Civil Parishes in Dorset by population or List of Towns in Dorset by population (but it doesnt include Bournemouth so big flaw there) but not List of Settlements in Dorset by population Eopsid (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing we delete these articles because you don't know what a settlement is?! A settlement is a built up area with a population. It saves having to put, list of hamlets, villages, town and cities in.... The term chosen by the ONS is built up areas. As I said above, if you want to propose a move to something else, then that is your perogative but you are just arguing semantics! The figures for Bournemouth are kept by the local government responsible (obviously, I would have thought). [[3]] I appreciate that you are now heavily invested in this discussion and perhaps don't know how to bow out gracefully but, as I said earlier, this isn't going anywhere productive. Nothing you have said, or are likely to say, is going to make me change my stance!--Ykraps (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the link you gave me earlier wasnt about built up areas but civil parishes which can have multiple built up areas or only parts of one. These articles arent using built up areas (except for Cornwall and Bedfordshire which are using them and civil parishes and should probably be split into two articles) but for the most part are using built-up area subdivisions and the consensus from the UK and England wide discussions was that labelling these subdivisions of built-up areas as settlements was misleading. Eopsid (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. No! The link I provided earlier [[4]] gives population figures for towns, wards, and parishes! More information than is needed! It seems to me, the problem is that you simply don't understand the terminology being used. Is that the case?--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons given for deletion are absurd, and defy basic WP:Common Sense. Some of them need a bit of improvement undoubtedly, such as consistent sourcing, and a consistent definition being used. But deleting them would not improve the encyclopedia. G-13114 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the reasons are absurd. The England and UK wide versions were deleted for the same reasons. Eopsid (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Primary sources are fine for government statistics. As for the two articles mentioned that were deleted, that was for different reasons, and we now have ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and List of urban areas in the United Kingdom anyway as well as Category:United_Kingdom_lists_by_population. These types of things are common for all nations as seen at Category:Lists by population and quite valid for information list articles. Dream Focus 14:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sourcing is that its a misleading use of it. The source doesnt refer to the areas as settlements but as built-up area subdivisions. I'd support moving all the articles to List of Built-up area subdivisons of X county. Eopsid (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source also doesnt split by county so they'd need merging by region to avoid Original Research. Eopsid (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eopsid I think there are bigger battles out there to fight. It's known a given built up area consists of one or more settlements, the vast majority of BUAs are within a given county, only a handful straddle or extend across county boundaries. And the counties of where the BUAs are within is visible in Nomis. It's not a problem to explain in the table that this is the case. The Equalizer (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't BUAs but BUASDs i.e. Built-up area subdivisions. Please dont confuse the two. Eopsid (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few that cross county boundaries, looking at List of settlements in Gloucestershire by population which contains the largest cross boundary BUASD which is Bristol's. The anomaly has just been covered up with original research. The articles are full of original research where people can't see their town because its not in the source and then add it using a completely different definition to the main one. Eopsid (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eopsid, as mentioned by an earlier post extrapolating stats from the OAs to cover that overlapping area is not OR, so fix the problem as much of the list is fine. The articles should really be semi-protected and only changed on consensus as yes I have seen the same issue with editors not realising a certain neighbourhood is already within a BUASD. The Equalizer (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all due to the problems identified by other people with the sourcing and the fact that the only way to resolve said issues is by relying on OR. Which is clearly a bad way to maintain articles. There's also already consensus that this isn't the way to do things because the England and UK wide versions of similar articles were deleted for the same reasons. It's absurd to ignore prior consensus and rely on OR to justify keeping these instead of just deleting them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. "List of Towns in XX" would be better achieved via categories. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source that was used CityPopulation.de did divide them by county so the original use of that as a reference was sound. The suggested category method does not gather population stats in one place so that they can be sorted by size, which the tables do. The Equalizer (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Thank you, The Equalizer. I have changed my view of the topic, thanks to your reply and the discussions below. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems like a valid list with a reasonably clear criteria which is that used by the ONS which is essentially independent of the settlements. I have some lists like User:Crouch, Swale/Suffolk BUAs which shows the status. If anything I'd include all BUAs and BUASDs not just those with a certain population. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all It looks like it's 'throwing baby out with the bath water' time again, folks. The deletion argument is flawed. These are list articles and, taking just List of settlements in Derbyshire by population as an example: all entries are notable and wikilinked. All entries are referenced. Citations to detail such as population counts would, by their very nature, be expected to be based upon primary sources (i.e. census data). The two columns already allow a user to determine population change over a decade, and once further census data is published, would allow a 2-decade population change to be viewed, assuming they were updated. My only concern is that some of the cited sources are not currently reachable, but WP:DEADLINKS have never been a rationale for deletion as far as I am aware. In what realm are these pages not informative or relevant to an encyclopaedia? So this is a strong keep from me, and my only criticism is that the population columns are not themselves sortable, which would render them even more useful across different time periods. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Derbyshire article's notes columns every settlement is using a different definition, some are parishes, some are groups of wards, some are built-up areas, some are districts. Its not comparing like with like, it's almost a text book example of Wikipedia:Synthesis. I've made the population columns sortable for you. Eopsid (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County/district/parish as public entities and wards of those are ultimately legal terms only to describe the governance type of a given area. The individual census base elements that are added up to form the geography and population of those different entities are all based on the same methodology. --The Equalizer (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The base elements aren't the problem. Its the way they are being combined and compared. It needs to be using a consistent definition, that article's just a mixture of different population statistics. Eopsid (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But districts can contain parishes and parishes can contain wards and wards can contain parishes so they can't be compared. Eopsid (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just stick to using BUA/BUASD populations but parish populations could be mentioned as well if needed but this is clearly a settlement list so settlement population should take precedence over parish population and for consistency/to avoid confusion I'd just use the BUA/BUASD as the determining factor for where on the list the population rank is but that's not a problem for AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Eopsid. Counties comprise a mix of districts, parishes and wards etc, all layered atop each other.

Districts would not normally be counted as a single settlement because they are usually so large they have numerous settlements - except for these Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_districts#Naming_conventions

A big town or city which is a single urban area might therefore be its own district or if important enough, a Unitary authority. So such a district we take into account.

Everywhere else say, is parished (but in the districts we are ignoring) - and parishes roughly correspond to a single settlement

Then that single urban district and all the parishes in the county will add up to the total county population. And we have ~tada~ a list of biggest to smallest settlements

Now, if an urban area in the county is not its own district or parish like that outlying Kingswood, South Gloucestershire by Bristol suburb, then how is that counted?

County population then = Own district(s) parishes unparished urban area

There are a number of lower census population stats that together can tabulate that space - wards, MSOA, SOAs etc

Councils do sometimes list what wards represent a suburb.

As long as that remaining area hasn't be accounted for in the own district and parishes counts, that remaining area population can be tabulated from lower geographies covering the same space.

And that is why the tables can be a list of "council" areas (when it's not but gives the locals a general understanding of population for their area as many relate to parishes as a key village identifier) - OR - alternatively, a list of BUA/SDs. Both have their pros and cons.

This is why human geography is very perplexing! There are complications (eg parishes do not always have one settlement, settlements straddles boundaries, BUASDs cross several parishes/districts/counties) but the stats given enough calculation can be worked out.

The Equalizer (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we shouldn't be attempting to calculate them, that's up to reliable sources to do, otherwise its just original research. Eopsid (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Find the comment with the Wiki policy (not guidance!) link further back up the messages that does state routine calculations are fine. The Equalizer (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are more than just routine calculations and what you wrote "but the stats given enough calculation can be worked out." implies that. Eopsid (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're now guessing. Please provide an example of this supposed complexity, the learned amongst us here could explain where you are going wrong. The Equalizer (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. In most cases, population changes will not be huge. Give priority to the update of List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population as only data from 2001. The others I sampled had data (also) from 2011. gidonb (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but they must be improved. The deletion arguments by the nominator seems flawed, but I can see why they'd have considered it in the first place. The articles need some work done for consistency and quality purposes. Contributors from the UK geo portal may be able to help out further. --Jf81 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep all - it seems that the nom did not understand the nature of the sources.Ingratis (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much dispute that. The article's sources are using something called Built-up area subdivisions and where they don't match expected settlement boundaries, Original Research and using alternative definitions (resulting in a Wikipedia:Synthesis riddled list) has been used to mask this. Its the exact same reason why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population was deleted. Also to add to the confusion the Scottish data, see List of towns and cities in Scotland by population, uses the word settlement to refer to the entirety of built-up areas instead of the subdvisions. Eopsid (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry - I should have taken the time to read through more carefully, although it's difficult to credit that it's not possible for these lists to be made accurate. No !vote. Ingratis (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...where they don't match expected settlement boundaries", Whose expectations are we talking about here? Yours? You have made your arguments and they have been discussed (adequately, in my view) there is no need to keep repeating yourself over and over. It could be construed as badgering or an attempt to make your arguments seem more plausible through assertion.--Ykraps (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not my expectations, the expectations of whoever wrote the article. To give an example from List of settlements in Gloucestershire by population, it uses built-up area subdivisions but the Bristol one crosses the county boundary into Gloucestershire, so to give a population figure for Kingswood, which is the Gloucestershire part of the Bristol built-up area subdivision, they article uses a parliamentary constituency. A ranked settlement population list using multiple definitions of settlements is clearly WP:Synthesis. There are examples in the other articles too, I've listed all of them in another discussion about cleaning these articles up. Eopsid (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t think your qualified to decide what others expect. If you have issues with particular articles, the correct thing to do is raise them on the corresponding talk page; not nominate multiple articles for deletion, any number of which, may or may not have those issues.--Ykraps (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correct thing to do would have been to nominate these articles for deletion just after the England and UK wides ones were deleted instead of waiting years. Eopsid (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup if there's a problem with the articles that needs to be fixed outside AFD, as suggested all of the articles should probably use the ONS BUAs and BUASDs not other things at least not for the 1st figure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (procedural), a ridiculously large multiafd with 36 articles, lets say a perfunctory 5minute search for references to see whether each/any list meets WP:NLIST and we're looking at around 3hours, suggest that nominator could have listed say a group of 6 at a time, that would have been more manageable. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete, but I'd support a procedural keep for the reason you've given. 36 articles in one AfD is rather ridiculous. It's possible a few of them are notable but won't be kept because people are assuming none of them are based on only search for half of them or however many. That aside, it's always better to nominate a few articles of the same type at a time to establish a precedent for deleting the rest. So I think procedurally keeping them and re-nominating them in much small groups would be good. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Phi Groove

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

If this is a notable organization, the sources don't show it. Virtually every reference in the article is a self-publication, and the list of "notable" member is mostly red-links or no-links. BD2412 T 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have a problem with this article. While more references would be helpful, the external references that note establishment and continuing existence are valid. Groove Phi Groove has far more than ten years of existence and far more than three chapters, thus meets the bar of notability followed by the Fraternity and Sorority Project. Therefore I support keeping it. Jax MN (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I definitely agree that the notable list needs to be trimmed and fixed, but that's different than an AFD consideration. I think "Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century" can be used as somewhat of a reference, though I'd love to get my hands on "Groove Phi Groove Social Fellowship, Inc. Black & White Works The First 50 Years: 1962 - 2012", even if it would count as a primary source.Naraht (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- BD2412 I believe that my recent changes represent an improvement. Don't know what to do with the authors in the notable member list, would appreciate someone else trimming (or nuking) that section.Naraht (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am still concerned that the article relies massively on self-published sources, and the organization's own claims about itself. BD2412 T 04:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 6 February 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution and attacks against Ex-Muslims in Kerala

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

POVFORK from ex-Muslims of Kerala Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV forking is not an approved way of handling content disputes. Nothing to merge back. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ And allow creation of a broader article which would include more than just Kerala. Shankargb (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually now we have enough credible sources to do encyclopedic paragraph writing about Persecution and attacks section in the article ex-Muslims of Kerala and likely to be updated soon for the same; So we need not consider List part as POV fork. As user User:Shankargb suggests I am for converting this list of persecutions into broader list article like Persecution and attacks against Ex-Muslims in South Asia. South Asian Muslim politics is diverse at regional level but underlying theological and cultural trends pertaining to orthodoxies and extremities are shared across which leads to persecution of skeptics and apostates. (For example denying burial space to apostates after death is part of culture of persecution shared by South Asian religious fanatics; I am speaking of fanatics only) Though due to persecution it takes time to come out as apostate in South Asia; Ex Muslims of South Asian descent are active globally specially in west where they get better freedom of expression and they share atheism globally. So there is also scope for an encyclopedic article Ex-Muslim activism from South Asia. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since all comments are from the last 24 hours, let's give this a bit more time to see if there's any further interest in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing the article's title and scope to Persecution of Ex-Muslims in South Asia per above. Shankargb (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If needed, relevant notices may be posted on the article until it has been suitably expanded. Article's scope may be expanded to " Persecution of Ex-Muslims in South Asia" if deemed necessary. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel like this should be a list article. If it was though the inclusion criteria would be way broad and the article would ultimately be unmaintainable. Which you can't get around by acting like this isn't a list. Given that, I think this should be deleted, turned into a list, and probably deleted for the reasons I've given for why it wouldn't work as one. Either that, or just delete it now and call the whole thing good. I don't really care. It's not like there can't just be a brief mention in the original article with some kind of inclusion criteria outside of "lets have an article that lists every Muslim that's ever been persecuted or attacked in Kerala." Is anyone really going to argue that it's at all useful to have an article listing every single non-notable, minor instance of a Muslim being threatened by an extremist group or whatever in Kerala, let alone South Asia? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to know why persecutions of ex-muslims isnt an article worth having when it clearly passes WP:N, having been covered by multiple sources. If it becomes bloated, article may be trimmed to the important cases and a section for "others" created. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained why it isn't an article worth having in my "vote" comment. What specific part of it do you disagree with or need clarification on? Outside of the question I will say though that just because there are a couple of news stories about specific instances of ex-Muslims being attacked doesn't automatically equate to the actual topic of Persecution and attacks against Ex-Muslims being covered by multiple sources. just like a local obituary in a newspaper for someone who died of COVID-19 is not say coverage of the wider topic of the pandemic in general. It's ridiculous to equate the two. To show this is a notable subject there would have to be sources actually discussing the topic. Not just cherry picking specific instances that fit an anti-Islamic narrative. Outside of that, the article is extremely non-neutral in it's premise, how it's written, and is clearly meant to be a sensationalist, anti-Islamic, pro-Hindu nationalist attack page. No article that exists purely for those reasons should exist on Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's job to host anti-Islamic propaganda. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a way of considering Persecution and attacks against Ex-Muslims in Kerala and Ex-Muslims of Kerala together and considering merging them to something like Muslim apostasy in Kerala? That page could talk about the demographics of the state, becoming an Ex-Muslim in Kerala, the organisation that is there to support them and the acts of persecution against them.Gusfriend (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the organization probably isn't notable. So there's zero reason to mention it anywhere else. Let alone merge this article to another one just so the information on the organization can be retained. If there's ultimately a consensus to delete the article because the organization isn't notable then the content about it should just stay deleted. Not recreated somewhere else as a run around to the AfD process. Talking about merging things and creating other articles is kind of a moot point until we determine one or another what if this should stay or not though. There's no point in merging anything into a completely new article if people determine the article is worth saving. Personally, I think the best option would be to delete it, add back whatever is worth retaining to the original article, which doesn't have to involve a merge, and then going from there. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation is notable, multiple sources available to establish notability. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which multiple sources specifically? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2:Keep Hinduism aside, as far as Kerala is concerned it has almost 100 years history of rationalist movement (and Islamist fanaticism too), Kerala has strong Communist history of roughly 80 years. Even if one keeps conversion from Islam to other religions aside, New Atheism movement is sort of here to stay across religions. The new atheist movement has it's own other social media avenues and does not seem to be dependent on existence of Wikipedia articles for them. Over all issue has came up due to hasty creation of articles without articulating broad enough scope that does not mean credible enough sources to cover topics do not exist, they do exist to cover topics encyclopedic way in credible manner.IMHO Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought up Hinduism is because of this sentence in the article "The reason was bizarre, yet, heart-wrenching: they chose to renounce Islam and accept Hinduism as their religion." Which sounds anti-Islamic and pro-Hindu. Personally, I really care less about the religious aspect. Except that it is literally what the article is about. So there's no way to just "put it aside." In the meantime, there's plenty of articles out there about Anti-Christian persecution and attacks by Hindus and likely visa versa that we could just easily make an article out of if we decided to. I'm against them in general though, but it is non-neutral and extremely bias to treat Islam like their the only one's who persecutes and attacks ex-members or people from other religions. I'd probably support a Persecution and attacks against religious minorities in Kerala that includes Hindu attacks on Christians, Islamic attacks on ex-Muslims, and whatever else there is. But as it is this article is just a sensationalist, anti-Islamic, pro-Hindu nationalist attack page. Period. Otherwise, lets turn it into an article about the general topic of religious persecution in Kerela/South Asia and not just single out Muslims, like their some how uniquely prone to persecuting people or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose already there would be enough articles covering religious persecution and conflicts in south Asia. So for this article I am not keen on the 1947 incidence either we can tone down or shift to religious conflict article. But persecution of Ex Muslim Atheists of South Asia is not covered very well. Other religious communities have evolved and moved on with times accepting atheists with less violence, that is not the case with large sections Muslim communities across the world still struggle to accept atheism among Muslims i.e. apostasy from Islam even from family level, some tendencies and theological parts about apostasy are unique to Islam . So legitimate encyclopedic coverage of persecution of Ex Muslim with credible references deserves due encyclopedic space IMHO.

Secondly I am proposing larger scope of South Asia. For example Persecution of Ex Muslims of Pakistan or Bangladesh would have nothing to do with other religions. As such atheist Ex Muslim would have nothing to do with other religions, reliable sources suggest atheist Ex Muslims get persecuted from both sides one from their own community and secondly anti–community hate causing people do not understand their atheism based on their names they keep coping with that pressure too so case of Ex Muslims stand to be unique one in that sense. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any Religious persecution in South Asia type articles. Nor even a one for Asia in general. Which honestly I'm kind of surprised about. There are various articles for religious persecution in particular countries though, including India. Maybe just merging/redirecting this to Freedom of religion in India would be a good step forward. Especially since from what I can tell the topic of ex-Muslim discrimination isn't even mentioned in the article. It would be weird to have an article specifically about kerala when it's not even covered in the general, country wide article though. IMO anything beyond that, like an article for South Asia, would be to broad of topic to be useful and I doubt it would be covered by multiple sources in any meaningful way anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Booku, but as Persecution of Ex-Muslims in South Asia. Wareon (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Islam in Kerala: Not a single reliable source covers the subject of the article; Booku's barely coherent rhetoric borrowing from oriental stereotypes is not a substitute for reliable sources. To borrow from Adamant1,
[J]ust because there are a couple of news stories about specific instances of ex-Muslims being attacked doesn't automatically equate to the actual topic of Persecution and attacks against Ex-Muslims being covered by multiple sources. just like a local obituary in a newspaper for someone who died of COVID-19 is not say coverage of the wider topic of the pandemic in general. It's ridiculous to equate the two. To show this is a notable subject there would have to be sources actually discussing the topic.

It is ridiculous to change this article into an article on Persecution of Ex-Muslims in South Asia. If you have sources, write a separate article. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On one side I feel pragmatically merging in Islam in Kerala is not too bad idea. But on the other hand pushing Ex Mislim back in Islam related article is kind of perusing systemic bias against Ex Muslims. In Wikipedia most times (unintentionally though) atheist are clubbed to respective religion projects and talk page intimations go to religion project instead of skepticism project that too adds to syestemic bias Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in a meta-discussion unless you can produce sources that cover our subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can someone please point me to sources that discuss this topic as a whole, and in sufficient depth to warrant a standalone article? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women's day around next month my focus is mainly shifting towards women's rights articles for coming couple of months. The new users who had started the article seem missing (on Wikipedia) as of now , So I suggest you can close the discussion either way or draftify. Only request is to at least leave the doors open enough when we work again on broader scope topic with credible references.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku:, is that comment directed at me? I will not be closing this; religious conversion in the subcontinent is too close to other topics I've worked on. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no sources treating this as a coherent topic. Depending on how individual incidents are covered, they may be worth covering under Islam in India, or Discrimination against atheists; but as things stand there's no evidence that this is a notable topic. Wikipedia isn't in the business of synthesizing primary sources to imply the existence of a topic that no secondary source has covered. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see some evidence that violence against rationalists is seen as a coherent topic by reliable sources; a couple of the incidents listed here could conceivably be a part of an article on that subject. I will not be the one to write it, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the crucial point. The article pulls together a bunch of incidents - the first o which took place fifty years before the others! - and claims that they are linked without citing any source that also makes that claim. Nwhyte (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a coherent topic. Cherry picked crime incidents and WP:LISTCRUFT. Kreately is a user generated blog site where anyone can post anything. Venkat TL (talk) 10:10, 11 February 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmet, North Dakota

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

As best I can determine, this was a 4th class post office, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. No evidence of legal recognition required for WP:GEOLAND#1 or WP:SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#No inherited notability so the fact that someone prominent lived on a farm near there does not show notability. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was written in good faith. Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid keep rationale, it amounts to "I like it" or "good article". FOARP (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McLean County, North Dakota for much of the "delete" rationale of User:Mangoe and User:FOARP. All I can find on a Google search for this town is that it exists. No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. I support redirect rather than deletion because the town may be a searchable topic, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Frank Anchor 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per sources and content brought forth by User:Clarityfiend. (Though I maintain a redirect would be a better option than outright deletion) Frank Anchor 03:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule we have not redirected these to the encompassing county. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a rather stupid (not to mention unofficial) rule as this provides a much better option to deletion. Frank Anchor 23:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's stupid. What's the point in redirecting a place name to the county if the article on the latter isn't going to say anything about the former? Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The latter most certainly does say something of the former. The McLean County page lists Emmet under unincorporated communities. I respectfully ask you to strike your false claim, so as to not incorrectly influence further votes. Frank Anchor 16:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Are people really search Emmet, North Dakota? Are they doing so looking for the county? Will they even understand why they have arrived at that page from a search for that place? The redirect makes no sense. FOARP (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very reasonable to think users may search for Emmet, ND. And having a redirect to the county is better than nothing at all. Frank Anchor 16:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, since the point of this AfD is that Emmet is not an unincorporated community, the appropriate response would be to remove Emmet from such a list. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought Wikipedia also serves as a gazatter. That is the reason I stated the article was written in good faith. Thank You-RFD (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view on it is that Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. At most it incorporates aspects of gazetteers, but is not a gazetteer per se. FOARP (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your factually inaccurate essay, that tries to belittle what everyone else accepts represents the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as is stated in its opening sentence, has zero standing in this discussion. SpinningSpark 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article mentions that James Kerzman lived "near Emmet", which is corroborated by a few newspaper results. That's about all we've got. This doesn't even tell us what Emmet was; was it a named crossroad? The place where Kerzman picked up his mail? A town? We don't know. I would also dismiss the assertion that Google results demonstrate Emmet actually existed. The first few dozen hits are sites like Newsbreak which use government geographic data to autogenerate location information; these are notorious for repeating database errors. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this Senate hearing on agricultural payments lists 23 named individuals from Emmet receiving payments under the scheme. Therefore there is, or was, a populated place at this location. Since it is recognised by the government for the purpose of making payments, that, imo, makes it a legally recognised place under GEOLAND and hence presumed notable. SpinningSpark 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, this book gives some details of its founding and says it was originally called Robinson and has some details on its renaming. From the location given (12 miles west of Garrision), it is clearly not the current Robinson, North Dakota which is 100 miles from Garrison in the opposite direction. SpinningSpark 19:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that either of these references say enough to get us all the way to a distinct settlement. Let me take the senate document first: we can see aerials from before the 1966 date of this document, and there's nothing at Emmet's location besides a single farm. This is unsurprising: farms in this area started big, so fifty recipients of farming aid would have to be spread out of a large area. Calling a "community" is an act of interpretation now as it was when it was when it used to signify "populated place". The book passage suffers from the same sort of omission, as it ratifies the post office, but doesn't go beyond that. The renaming is particularly characteristic of a 4th class post office, as it often occurred at change of postmaster. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. This 1966 Associated Press article[5] about James Kerzman's 19(!) orphaned children was posted from Emmet, N.D., and this 1978 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article[6] gives the home town of the third place competitor in the calf roping world championships as Emmet, so apparently it was a legit populated place. There was a 1962 construction contract awarded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to expand the White Shield School there to add another 150 classroom seats,[7] Associate Judge Vanoe R. Gillette appointed "Appelate Court - Emmet, North Dakota" by the governing body of the three affiliated tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation,[8] and a bunch of classified ads offering various things for sale by sellers giving their address as Emmet. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an entry for the librarian of the White Shield Indian School in Emmet in the Department of the Interior's 1971 Proceedings of the Departmental Workshop. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that the White Shield School isn't in Emmet and as far as I can tell never was. Not terribly surprisingly, it's in White Shield, which is almost nine miles west of Emmet. This is why I don't give a lot of weight to people being "from" some place; for my own part, I would when I was a kid say I was "from" Laurel, MD, even though I never lived in the city a day of my life. These references at best establish a fairly vague locale. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point, which is that the place is recognized in official publications. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of this provides a keep rationale. Mentioned =/= recognised. The 19 orphans lived near Emmet, not in it, and nothing is said in the article about Emmet. Ditto the calf-roping champion. White Shield school is at White Shield, there is no legal recognition indicated in the brief mention of White shield school being near there (same with this). The document about the appellate court is merely describing where Vanoe R. Gillette lived, it is not conferring legal recognition on the location. All of this merely points to Emmet being a location on the map, nothing more. I don't even need to say that classified adverts don't amount to anything. FOARP (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing: White Shield, North Dakota is the biggest community for many miles, but it was at one time considered part of Emmet (9 miles away) and the White Shield school currently has a Roseglen, North Dakota mailing address. Roseglen is 5 miles away and consists of a post office along with two or three other buildings.

The most logical explanation is that these are postal districts that cover large rural areas, which means that people and places that use the mailing address are described as "near" or "from" there even though there's no distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now leaning toward delete. While I strongly suspect it is or was a community, the sourcing isn't strong enough to say anything really definitive. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input would be helpful, as there are policy-based arguments on both sides
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a post office, and a homestead.
Barnes Williams, Mary Ann (1966). "Emmet". Origins of North Dakota Place Names. Bismarck tribune. p. 173. EMMET: A rural post office established Aug. 10, 1903, on the NW1/4 Sec. 28-148-86, with Mrs. Nancy J. Frederickson, postmaster was named ROBINSON for the brothers, George L. and John J. Robinson […] the homestead of Charles Laudenbeck, and named for his infant son . […] one of the few present day rural post offices of the county.
Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post offices are not automatically notable, neither are homesteads. A post office can be literally anywhere, and in this instance appears to have been in a homestead/farm. Notably they used a code to identify where the post office actually was, rather than saying that it was in specific community.FOARP (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was the name of a post office, we have a whole bunch of people who preferred to say they were from Emmet rather than a mile marker on a highway. They think they are a community and repeatedly say it in reliable sources. Communities are made by the people who are in them, not by bureaucratic dictat. SpinningSpark 14:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, when you live in an unnamed rural area far from any town and someone asks where you're from, you'd usually give them the name of the post office. And many post offices weren't located in communities; often, they were just someone's house where the mail was dropped off. If you read the sources carefully, nearly all of them describe people who are "from near Emmet", and the others don't make it clear whether it was a community or just a post office. Did the 23 farmers who received government payments actually say that they lived in a town/village/settlement called Emmet, or is that just the post office where the money was sent? Aside from its "founding", we have no sources which discuss a community at this location, and I don't see how we can maintain a factual article about a place that lacks direct in-depth coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 13:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing is that the statement that this is a community is just something WP editors made up. This was created slightly better than the usual GNIS-based stub, but some WP writer still looked at "populated place" and turned it into "unincorporated community" as had been done many time over before, without sourcing. And in any case the word is so vague and open-ended that I would personally avoid using it in a reference work: it's the sort of language one uses when one is trying to find something else to say besides "town" or "development" or "wide spot in the road", especially if one is trying to make it sound all warm and mutual. Mangoe (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This community, though small, is still notable enough for its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is clearly a populated place, or at least was at one point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just being populated isn't enough. There are lots of such places we would obviously not have articles for. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Another former United States community, a reminder of the declining population of rural America. Has sourcing. I think we can close this one, because whether its "no consensus" or "keep", its clear there will not be a consensus to delete.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this interpretation of the scanty information we have. A lot of these post offices got eliminated over the years simply because the delivery systems improved, or because they were at rail stations no longer useful, and at any rate, there's nothing quantitative on which to base the claim of a decline here. There's no evidence of a concentration of population which has gone away. Mangoe (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note on sources:

GNIS is not a reliable source for whether a place was ever populated or not and does not show legal recognition.
"Watchmaker Publishing" (actually Watchmaker Publishing and Design) is a self-publishing/vanity publishing imprint. Their editing services are pay-for-play. The two Joseph L. Gavett books are therefore self-published and not reliable.
The Abilene Reporter-News story says literally nothing about Emmet - it describes a 1,200 Acre farm (i.e., roughly a couple of square miles) near Emmet.
Again, the Kerzman obit says nothing about Emmet, it describes Kerzman as having lived near Emmet.
Origins of North Dakota Place Names - You can see the book here. It states that it was printed by the Bismarck Tribune and that the the reprint came "thru the generosity of the heirs of Mary Ann Barnes Williams" (see page 4). There is no clear evidence that this was published by a reputable publisher. The source at page 175 describes Emmet as a "Rural post office" and/or "homestead", which are not notable things absent significant coverage (which it does not give). It also describes the post-office has having moved three times, each time by a distance of a mile or more during the course of its existence, which shows that it could not possibly have been an established community.

If this is kept we will be keeping an article without even a single reliable source saying anything about an actual established community at Emmet, ND, much less there being any kind of legally-recognised community there. I urge the closer to take into account the complete lack of any actual reliably-sourced coverage of a community at Emmet, ND being shown by any of the people !voting keep when closing this. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been exhaustively shown here, there are no reliable sources demonstrating that there was ever a well-established community, as opposed to a simple post office or some other named reference point, at this locality. Effectively un-WP:V erifiable, and also a failure of GNG. This would probably refute the presumption of notability given by GEOLAND, but that guideline is not met here either. Avilich (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be a rough consensus that this census-designated place barely passes WP:GEOLAND. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow Oaks, Florida

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND, as its only legal recognition appears to be as a census tract, which is the exception to GEOLAND #1.

A search for sources reveals that there are a few passing mentions that may refer to the location, typically in the context of deed transfers, there appears to be no in-depth coverage, meaning that it also fails WP:GNG.

Given that over 2000 people live there, it seems likely that there is coverage, but I have not been able to identify it - it may be that the coverage of the location uses the name of the broader geographical area. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like there's a Meadow Oaks Golf Club in the area given for this community on Google Maps, which gives its address as being in Hudson, Florida. Niche.com calls it a suburb of Tampa. Florida Politics mentions it as a community in inland Pasco County. Maybe this is a suburb based on some golf club? wizzito | say hello! 02:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google Maps shows a big "Meadow Oaks Golf Course Community" sign at the entrance, the kind you would see at a subdivision. The CDP boundary on Niche shows that it encompasses several other subdivisions that are also listed on nearby sign: Shadow Lakes, Sugar Creek and Shadow Lake Estates. CDPs are often kept, but this one just seems to be a big census tract that was drawn on the map to facilitate counting people rather than an actual distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Census-designated places are different from census tracts; they're communities that the U.S. Census Bureau decides are worth tracking the population of even though they're not incorporated. The census documentation for a census-designated place provides coverage of a place's demographics and geography, which can be used to develop the article. As for Meadow Oaks specifically, Tampa newspapers seem to have documented its development; it was built in the 1980s as a community centered around a new golf course. There's coverage here and here about the community's planning, here and here about ongoing construction in the early 2000s, and several articles about the golf course [9] [10] [11] [12]. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meadow Lakes CDP was established as part of the 2010 census as noted in this report (page 19 of the pdf explains the changes from the 2000 census, Meadow Oaks specifically on page 25 with Pasco County). From what I gathered from Pasco County Planning, Meadow Oaks is pretty much the extent of the existing development and most likely built-out. The 2020 census noted an increase in 400 people and 96 residential units which supports this thought.[13] – The Grid (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CDPs are certainly unincorporated communities and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia precedent documents (all of) them as one feature/function of a gazetteer. Wikipedia should remain consistent with the US government on this coverage. Djflem (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is understanding the context of how it's being utilized regardless of it being defined as a census-designated place by the Census Bureau. It's important to note a CDP is essentially a statistical entity with no legal basis. What is interesting with the 2020 Census, the lower government entities can provide updates to the CDP boundaries to the Census Bureau. [14] – The Grid (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:"criteria established for the 2010 Census require that a CDP name "be one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" (not "a name developed solely for planning or other purposes") and recommend that a CDP's boundaries be mapped based on the geographic extent associated with inhabitants' regular use of the named place." Documenting inhabited places (and previously inhabited places in many cases) has consistent standard practice.Djflem (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the referenced federal document, and while it does explain one thing I had noticed (the elimination of hyphenated CDPs) the one thing it does not explain is why one place that meets the qualifications gets a CDP, and another does not. Lots of subdivisions would appear to be potential CDPs, so why are so few of them so recognized? Mangoe (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: That would be a question for the Census Bureau, but it is not a AFD argument, is it?Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can reply to Djflem in a better way but...why are you looking at the Wikipedia article when the definition is coming from the Census Bureau?! From what I provided above: "CDPs are statistical equivalents of incorporated places and represent unincorporated communities that do not have a legally defined boundary or an active, functioning governmental structure. Examples of CDPs include unincorporated communities, planned communities, military installments, university towns, resort towns, etc." – a CDP is a "Census-designated place" because it is literally a designation defined by the Census. It is purely used for statistics and planning. – The Grid (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: Have you read the in the Federal Register "Census Designated Place (CDP) Program for the 2010 Census – Final Criteria" (PDF). Federal Register (Volume 73, Number 30). February 13, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2016. which gives a much more indepth explanation and definition of how CDPs are indeed communities, and not random census tracts.?Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of the report: CDPs are statistical geographic entities representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name. They are the statistical equivalents of incorporated places, with the primary differences being the lack of both a legally-defined boundary and an active, functioning governmental structure, chartered by the state and administered by elected officials.

For reference: The Federal Register's documentation of CDPs for 2020 census. [15]

Also, "There are no minimum population or housing unit thresholds for defining CDPs; however, a CDP must contain some population or housing units or both." – The Grid (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG and GEOLAND. CDP's are notable 99% of the time, as it can be argued that it becomes "legally recognized." ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a consensus that it does represent legal recognition. Every time a CDP-associated place comes up for deletion, we have this argument. Mangoe (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that CDPs are kept because they represent identifiable communities.Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, and I have my doubts that it is true. Communities represented by CDPs are rarely taken to AfD in the first place because they mostly represent obvious towns and the like, which would pass GNG handily, never mind geographic standards. Every time one comes up where the place itself doesn't clearly pass notability in its own right, we get into this argument over whether the CDP designation is enough. That to me reads as a lack of consensus. Mangoe (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that argument that matters it's the outcome that does, and consensus has almost consistently been to keep.Djflem (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely does matter what the argument was. If only arguments presented were "Keep - is a CDP" and that resulted in the article being kept that is one thing, but if instead the real argument made was "Keep - here's some Sigcov" then that would be another. Coming up with CDPs that have been deleted/redirected is trivially easy, e.g., -

Hey look, here's a no-consensus close that literally states that the status of CDPs is undecided. But even if CDPs had been kept automatically in the past, simply keeping this article now because of that would be illogical because "keep this article because we keep this kind of article" is circular reasoning. There quite simply is no such consensus on Wikipedia about CDPs, and attempts to create such a consensus through repeated assertion should not be countenanced. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also even for Djflem to state that consensus has been consistent ignores that consensus can change. – The Grid (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can with "trivial ease" observe that indeed only one the aforementioned afds for a CDP resulted in delete; two in redirects, and one in no consensus.

2021:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vine Hill-Pacheco, California (2nd nomination)), which as the AFD pointed out was a former CDP which had been split into two. Basic clean up.

2021:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam-Churchill, Montana another redirect of former CDP to the new CDPS which were created, which appears to be simply updating and clean-up.

2020:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhlenberg Park, Pennsylvania clearly observed there is no consensus to delete CDPS.

2017:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Johns Mission, Arizona clarified that what was mission/school was indeed better handled in the CDP in which it is located and not as a separate article.

Thus, the survey provided indicates to indicate former CDPS should be cleaned up, a dubious situation is better redirected, and that there is no consensus to delete CDPS, whereas Consensus through editing and outcomes would suggest keep. Djflem (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The TL;DR version of your comment is "CDPs are always kept except for the ones that weren't kept". Trying to adduce a consensus from that, particularly where one of them was literally closed with the statement that there was actually no consensus about CDPs, is something of a reach. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not. My comment clarifies your survey. I have responded below as the discussion touches on similar issue mentioned there.Djflem (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is NO agreed automatic notability for CDPs - you'd think the people who keep asserting this as if it were the case would know this, since the point is argued at every AFD where it is raised. To re-iterate the arguments against CDPs as "legally recognised communities" as required for a pass under WP:GEOLAND#1 (which is still only an indicator of what typically is notable), they are often simply accounting units used in the census, they are not required to have any centre or any actual community associated with them, they are not a form of legal recognition (i.e., they do not confer any change in status/powers/governance) of the kind that would necessarily create the coverage needed for an encyclopaedic article. If CDPs uncontroversially legally-recognised communities, the guidelines would say so, but they don't, because they aren't.

Even asserting that "CDP's are notable 99% of the time" begs the question of whether this is a case that falls into the 1%. This is particularly the case when people above are arguing that this is a WP:GNG pass, which would necessarily require multiple instances of significant coverage, when in this case there isn't even a single one. Instead the coverage is GNIS (unreliable) and a US census tally (pure database/table excluded under WP:NGEO).

The sign stating that it is a "golfing community" is a pretty heavy hint of what it is we are actually talking about here - a hunch that is born out by looking at the over-head view. We're talking about a golf-course/country-club, and the real standard is WP:CORP, which is obviously failed. FOARP (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you may or may not think it's enough to pass GNG, I was able to find non-trivial newspaper coverage of the community's development, which I cited in my !vote. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP and my comments about CDPs above. I would argue if this existed for several decennial censuses but it was added in the 2010 census. The boundary contains the development of the same name and it looks to be built out. The 2020 census noted an increase in 400 people and 96 residential units. There's not going to be much change in the CDP going forward. [16] – The Grid (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it doesn't seem to be just a census tract since City Population has an entry for it so I think GEOLAND#1 is passed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citypopulation.de is not a reliable source. It directly tells us that it is sourced to Wikipedia and similar sources. FOARP (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the text yes it gets from Wikidata namely the "unincorporated community and census-designated place in Pasco County, Florida, United States – Elevation: 33 m – Local dialing code: 352" but not the data its self which it states is from the U.S. Census Bureau. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then this information should be cited directly to the census bureau, if that is where it really came from - an aggregator website is not reliable for this. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also states Wikipedia as a source...it very well could be circular referencing here. – The Grid (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CDPs are a special form of "official recognition" by the Census Burueau, and, are not as claimed: "often simply accounting units used in the census, they are not required to have any centre or any actual community associated with them" or that they are "purely for statistics and planning." The actual definition is better taken from the reliable source, "Census Designated Place (CDP) Program for the 2010 Census – Final Criteria" (PDF). Federal Register (Volume 73, Number 30). February 13, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2016. rather than opinions such as above. That definition is detailed in that clearly states that CDPS are geographic entities (as well as statistical equivalents of incorporated areas), and are identified as communities by the population associated with them. Djflem (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical equivalent =/= equivalent in terms of notability. Particularly the document you've just posted states that "the primary differences [with incorporated communities] being the lack of both a legally-defined boundary and an active, functioning governmental structure, chartered by the state and administered by elected officials" - these are the precise things that make legally-recognised communities notable, because they are precisely the things that generate significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welcome to that opinion. I would say most the millions who live in CDPs would identify with the definition that CDPS are "geographic entities representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name.", ie the place where they live, work, shop, recreate, etc. Documenting "closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name" is completely consistent with the Consensus through editing.Djflem (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Segueing directly from "I would say" to "the consensus is" shows what the actual nature of the consensus on CDPs is: there is none. There are conflicting views of which yours is one. Places are not notable simply because they are places where people "live, work, shop, recreate, etc.", if they were then the street I live on (which is also a "closely settled, unincorporated communit[y] that [is] locally recognized and identified by name") would also be notable.

The reason for requiring actual legal recognition (e.g., actual incorporation) is that it inevitably creates significant coverage of some kind from which a history of the location can be constructed. Mere statistical recognition does not do this as the only coverage is statistical, not significant.

And even with all this, GEOLAND#1 only indicates what is typically notable, it is not a fully automatic keep, particularly where there just simply isn't any actual coverage, because in reality the topic is apparently some kind of country-club/golf-course and the real standard is WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one 1 "delete" you've offered as an example above was a former hyphenated CDP (the typed of which no longer exists) which was replaced by two articles on the two CDPs it was split into, thus a technical deletion based on a split demonstrating an instance of keeping and expanding the material on Wikipedia. The 2 other was clean up redirect of another former hyphenated CDP, which was a reasonable outcome for a former CDP (of that type that no longer exists). The 3 other was not of a CDP article at all, despite the claim that it was. The question was whether the material should be covered in the CDP target article, resulting in keeping both the material and the target. The 4 fourth article cited makes a claim by the closer, which is comment, not policy or guideline or consensus since closers should make neutral closing comments specific to the closing they make, and thus should be read that way. So, yes, there was no consensus to delete the afd in question. From the above survey you've offered one cannot conclude that CDPs delete/redirects have been based on much other than technical reasons, whereas editing through consensus in the creation and maintenance of CDP articles overwhelmingly demonstrates a community interest in having articles on Wikipedia about CDPs. Djflem (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive from 2016 to date clearly establishes precedent and community consensus to keep CDPs. Djflem (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very broad statement to make without pointing to any examples within the list. – The Grid (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The archive, which contains any and all examples, is there for review.Djflem (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HEY Article has been expanded significantly since nom. Djflem (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the new sources added are either passing mentions, maps (which are excluded from showing notability by NGEO), obvious algorithm-generated content, or are significant coverage of the Meadow Oaks Golf and Country Club, which again highlights the fact that WP:CORP is the real standard that should be applied here, and that for all the abstract discussion of CDPs above, what we are really talking about is a business of some sort. I mean, have you ever heard of an unincorporated community filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy? No, that's what businesses do. It's a pity that so many of these US Geo AFDs turn into efforts to try to play up the most obviously WP:MILL or even WP:PROMO newspaper coverage, and completely ignore WP:NOTNEWS.

I could still be open to keeping an article refactored to the Golf Club if the WP:AUD requirement could be met, but this would require something better than just coverage in local press. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no mention of the topic you're rambling on about in the article (never was), so thanks for pointing out that the reference used for that total red herring (and mischaracterzation) was unneeded since the article is not about a business. It's about a community that is a census-designated place, of the type that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive from 2016 to date clearly establishes precedent and community consensus to keep (despite the 4 previously mentioned above, which also proves that point).10:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That the article does not accurately reflect the only significant coverage found (which universally describes this as a golf course and country club) is a problem for the article, not for the sourcing. Again, there is simply no such consensus about CDPs. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE An review of WikiProject Deletion sorting for Geography Archive from 2018-to date reveals the community-wide response to AfDs for CDPs:

1. There have been 7 keeps of CDPs

2. There has been 1 keep of a CDP specifically segregated in a bundled nomination

3. There have been 17 redirects/merges of neighborhoods/unincorporated communities to CDP which is targeted primary article of recognized populated place

4. There have been 2 no consensus to delete CDP

5. There has been 1 redirect of a former CDP (of the hyphenated type curtailed by the Census Bureau)

6. There has been 1 deletion of former CDP (of the hyphenated type curtailed by the Census Bureau)

Djflem (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Small communities still meet our general notability requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it meets geoland, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is most likely going to end up as no consensus but this discussion should continue to at least evaluate WP:GEOLAND in the context of CDPs with the recent census. I think we can have a more level headed approach as I admit I started my discussion in here a little bit over the top and I apologize to Djflem if it seemed like it was too much. – The Grid (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's worthwhile to have these case-by-case discussions since there's not clear consensus for CDPs. My 2 cents would be that CDP designation isn't a great indicator of notability, since it's just used for the purpose of counting people and doesn't seem to be applied consistently across similar neighborhoods. However I don't find them as concerning as, say, GNIS entries since they're always real places. It's a question of subjective notability rather than verifiability. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The delineation and establishment of geographic borders of known, recognizable unincorporated places with a distinct identity is work done by local/state bodies in conjunction with the Census Bureau ("Comparing 2010 and 2020 Census Area Boundaries". Sarasota County, Florida. 10 February 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)) and is much more than merely 'counting people', so much so that the Florida Department of State lists CDPs equally with incorporated places.("City County List". Division of Library and Information Services.).Djflem (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Arbitration clearly states that "where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus"

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) and any discussion at an individual afd is local consensus with limited participation (thus, subordinate to global consensus).

A nomination for deletion is a proposed edit by a contributor to eliminate an article. Since 2018 the Wikipedia community has consistently and overwhelmingly rejected those proposed edits. That is a global consensus 'to edit a certain way" developed through community-wide participation over an extended period of time. The consensus through editing seen in the outcomes of more than 25 afds involving CDPs (described in above NOTE) clearly demonstrates broad participation, preference, and precedent to edit so that CDP articles are kept or are the targets of merge/redirects.Djflem (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. There's still a case-by-case to review these CDPs. For instance, the Sarasota County ArcGIS map shows the changes of several CDPs. (One of them I did not even realize wasn't a CDP prior to 2020 - Palmer Ranch, Florida - but I already knew from my own review and knowledge of the area that it was sufficient for WP:GNG) – The Grid (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not missing the point, making one - about sustained outcomes and global consensus - which specifically addresses yours. Djflem (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the deletion sorting for geography archive from 2018-to date of 30 afds involving CDPs (see NOTE above), the two local discussions (brought by the same nominator) resulting in no consensus to delete show that here in 4/2020 five (maybe 6) of nine participants (including nominator, 1 redirect) stated the CDPs should be kept and that here in 4/2020 two of four participants (including nominator) stated that CDPs should be kept. Djflem (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NGEO's lede states "Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question." As such, I don't believe this discussion about whether this is excluded from presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND due to being a census tract is particularly relevant; the notability of this geographical feature has been called into question, and now we need to consider it on the grounds of WP:GNG. I believe the following source assessment table will help with that:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://data.news-press.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/meadow-oaks-cdp-florida/160-1243785/			Statistical data only	✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/2010_place_list_12.txt			Statistical data only	✘ No
https://www.uszip.com/zip/34669			Statistical data only	✘ No
https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/2583362		~ WP:RSP	Statistical data only	✘ No
https://dos.myflorida.com/library-archives/research/florida-information/government/local-resources/citycounty-list/			List of locations; specified as a "census designated place"	✘ No
http://www.hudsonfla.com/neighborhoods2.htm		Appears to be self published	Single paragraph on Meadow Oaks, with most content covering the country club	✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/econ/ec2012/cbsa/EC2012_310M200US45300M.pdf?#			A map	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941429/tampa-bay-times/	~ Significant direct quoting		Statistical data only (prices, size, cost), with the exception of the direct quotes which are not independent	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941828/the-tampa-tribune/			Coverage of the country club, not the community	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941851/tampa-bay-times/			Coverage of the country club, not the community	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941892/tampa-bay-times/			Coverage of the country club, not the community	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941748/the-tampa-tribune/	~ Mostly consists of restating which various individuals said, without further analysis		Only independent information is basic facts; units cut from 116 to 103, what the commission was asked, etc	✘ No
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2002/03/07/meadow-oaks-developers-told-to-stop/			Coverage of one of the developers, Tam Bay, not the community	✘ No
https://www.suncoastnews.com/news/pasco-leaders-halt-road-repaving-project/article_cf6f5894-a83e-11eb-8c35-53fefaec193f.html			Single paragraph about an amendment relating to the community discussed at the Pasco County Commission	✘ No
https://www.ramopoa.com/	Published by Meadow Oaks			✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/tract/st12_fl/c12101_pasco/DC10CT_C12101_001.pdf			Map	✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2010/cph-2/cph-2-11.pdf			Statistical data only	✘ No
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/263027-ardian-zika-adds-two-major-endorsements-for-hd-37-campaign/			Passing mention in a list of locations in HD 37	✘ No
https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/pascocofl/17404bc1-e302-45e8-8361-c244d849c767.pdf?sv=2015-12-11&sr=b&sig=v65nkRVNEWUKqceYkoL+HjiBqjiUWOUe2Jr4zTZgE4g=&st=2022-01-29T20:15:01Z&se=2023-01-29T20:20:01Z&sp=r&rscc=no-cache&rsct=application/pdf			Map	✘ No
https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/pascocofl/c161ee35-347f-46de-bf07-dbd37a01841e_PDF_A.pdf?sv=2015-12-11&sr=b&sig=BkkICoufKxwfpm2qBecFrVsihpVUMpqbC/QZ8z+nHbM=&st=2022-01-30T09:10:36Z&se=2023-01-30T09:15:36Z&sp=r&rscc=no-cache&rsct=application/pdf		~ Primary source	Description of zoning amendment	✘ No
https://www.pascocountyfl.net/DocumentCenter/View/2221/Tech-Support-Doc-Chapter-2-FLUn_Part1?bidId=			Statistical data and maps	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between a census tract, which this is not, and census-designated place, a uniquely American type of populated place, which this is. NGEO is specific about the former and notably silent on the latter. One can see CDPs (defined colored areas), the borders of which of were created by state/local authorities in conjunction with the federal government, can be part of more than one census tract. The discussion is relevant as the topic has been the subject of periodic and sustained local discussion. Djflem (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are both entities defined solely for statistical purposes. I stand by my point above, that the answer to this question isn't relevant, but I will note that WP:GEOLAND requires that the location is "legally recognized". Census-designated places "have no legal status", which mean they don't meet this requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the relevant discussions, archives of which can be found @ Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive, that point had been made and contested many times. Djflem (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The government's position is that they "have no legal status". As WP:GEOLAND requires the place to be "legally recognized", they do not meet GEOLAND. If you believe they should, I would suggest opening an RFC to change it from "legally recognized" to "officially recognized"

As for the previous discussions, the one at Notability (geographic features) appears to support my position, both in number of !votes, and in strength of arguments, and the deletion sorting archive includes thousands of discussions and no clear way to identify which are relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided refers to CDP borders, not CDPs themselves, which specifies that those borders do not have legal status, unlike delineations laid out in property deeds and election districts which, one assumes, are 'legally recognised' by the government and do. So, while there might be reason to replace one set of weasel words with another (legal vs. official), it would be of little effect in resolving the issue at hand. The interpretation of those words (or others like "formal/informal") and how the community has interpreted them does remain at the core at this discussion. Consensus through discussion (there are more at Notability (geographic features) than the above link) remains, well, "discussable". Consensus through editing in the arguments and outcomes in the archive (see summary in NOTE: above) shows the results of the community's interpretation and practice, which has afforded CDPs the same standing as incorporated places, and have been kept.

The discussion I listed, that appears to support my interpretation, is the only substantial one; the others are mentions in the context of other discussions that we cannot determine a consensus from. But this discussion isn't going anywhere; my position is both that it fails WP:GEOLAND, and that per WP:NGEO this notability can and has been questioned so whether it passes WP:GEOLAND is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, whether something 'passes' GEOLAND is very relevant, such as with incorporated places, which are always 'granted' nobility. The global consensus is that CDPs have a similar status, evidence of which has not been disproven. 12:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Same thing again and again - asserting there is a consensus doesn't make it true, particularly given the other AFDs where that wasn't shown including one that explicitly closed saying there was no such consensus about CDPs. Your argument amounts to "If you ignore everything saying otherwise, there is consensus about CDPs". If you want CDPs to be automatically given notability then we need a proper RFC saying that, since it isn't legal recognition in any meaningful sense (it confers no powers, requires no process of law etc.). It amounts to changing "legal recognition" to "official recognition". FOARP (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the repetition, but since it is you repeating a claim/argument made above, you can expect the same response and rationale for why it is a poor one: Besides the fact that a single AfD discussion does not a consensus make, the cherry-picked locale AfD (one of only two of 30 AfDs resulting in NC since 2018), in which 5/6 six of the 10 participants (incl nominator/1 redirect!vote) specifically stated that CPDs are inherently notable, further supports the global consensus that they are. You are welcome to disprove the the evidence of that establishment, which thus far you have not.Djflem (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not 'granted', they are 'presumed'. That presumption can be challenged. BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you check that, since consensus does hold that incorporated places are indeed 'granted' inherent nobility.Djflem (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again, WP:GEOLAND uses 'presumed', not 'granted'. If you believe it should be 'granted', I would suggest opening an RFC, although I do not believe there will be a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was my whole point to discussing CDPs in a centralized discussion. We are at the start of a new census. We should be looking to see if any definitions of previously established census entities have been changed. This also extends to how individual states recognize them because they control how much fed aid ultimately gets used. This probably needs a view on each state's respective department pertaining to growth management or long-term planning. All that is for a different discussion. We are really going beyond the scope of this AfD and already had circular discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Questions about the veracity of the consensus that incorporated places are granted automatic inclusion in Wikipedia based on inherent nobility are better brought at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features). An inquiry there may clarify any doubts. Suggestions for wording changes in guidelines are better brought there, too, rather than in this AfD. Djflem (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to bring it there, but the current wording is clear that they are only granted presumed notability, not automatic inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass NGEOLAND and GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a CDP similar to Suburbs and localities (Australia) in that although it may not be legally recognized like a municipality or district etc it is a place where population data is published for a named place as opposed to a random area, that is to say Meadow Oaks does refer to a place on the ground since there is Meadow Oaks Golf and County Club. Compare this on England to the fact that in addition to BUAs and BUASDs which are used to measure settlement themselves rather than a named area like the Australian ones that may be larger than the settlement. We also have the likes of Kersey[17] which does have its own unit of governance (though limited) namely Kersey Parish Council which also includes several settlements in addition to the village of Kersey. There is also Stanwix Rural[18] that has Stanwix Rural Parish Council but doesn't have a settlement of the same name but does cover a number of settlements. In contrast "Basildon 002D Lower-layer SOA" is a census tract which is a random area and doesn't have a name. While its true that individual buildings etc and ābādī may have data or at least be able to determine the population and thus be "populated" places but not be notable I don't think its required for a place to be an administrative division to be legally recognized and its quite clear that a place listed with a population of 2,842 which is not a random area does appear to satisfy the legally recognized part of GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible that they are similar, but if so it appears that notability isn't presumed for them, based on this list, which suggests we don't have articles for most such locations in Victoria. BilledMammal (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there is a consensus that they are notable even if many have not been created, I recall that there was 1 that was merged which was an uninhabited one though. If you look at User:Crouch, Swale/Suffolk BUAs for English BUAs you can see most exist but a few don't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we had articles for most of them that would be possible, but the fact that most don't have articles suggests they are not notable. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - List of localities in Tasmania tells a different story, all are blue links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't see that list; much easier to read. But looking at the specific examples, many appear to lack notability, being entirely based on government sources. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of CDPs by state is a very clear indicator of the Wikipedia community's interest and desire to have complete coverage of CDPs (as would any encyclopeida worthy of the not paper it's printed on). So, if the fact that most don't have articles about them makes them not notable, then the converse must be true, too.Djflem (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are an indicator an editor called Ram-Man went around in 2002 and created tens of thousands of short articles through an automated process, filled in with data sourced solely from the census. Since then, some of the articles have had a lot written about them; the ones about CDPs have not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: And of the more than 30 nominations for articles for deletion results involving CPDS, all (except for one technical reason) have survived, which is the best test and indicator of community's consensus to keep them, which you don't appear to disagree with or prove otherwise. Djflem (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your count is correct, I don't consider it relevant, for two reasons. First, WP:CCC, and second because the argument is circular reasoning. You are arguing that because an article on a CDP has never been deleted, an article on a CDP can never be deleted. If you want to establish that they can never be deleted, you need to get a consensus for that at WP:NGEO - the fact that you haven't suggests to me that you don't believe there would be a community consensus for that. BilledMammal (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community has already spoken.Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. The collective consensus to edit in a certain way (to endow CDPs with same status as incorporated communities, which can never be deleted), backed up by arguments made in those AfDs and demonstrated in the outcomes over several years, has more weight than the local consensus in any of them or at NGEOtalk. Djflem (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community has spoken to grant presumed notability, not inherent notability. If you want to change that, then you need to open a discussion at WP:NGEO. If you don't, then I would suggest to the closer that you have no confidence in your belief that the community endorses your position. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just state WP:CONLEVEL which is what applies. Consensus can change and how can NGEOtalk not apply when that's how the damn consensus eventually formed - discussion happened. That's how the entire WP:GEOLAND guidelines came to exist. – The Grid (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those were incorperated places having their own government so I'm pretty sure would pass GEOLAND and creating such articles that was was probably a good idea. If you look at Wivenhoe, Tasmania as an example in Tasmania it does include other facts but if GEOLAND#1 is satisfied then no other coverage is probably needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahaman

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

An apparent autobiography of an actor which borders on being promotional and is WP:REFBOMBed with passing mentions, none of which contribute towards WP:GNG. He lacks the multiple significant roles for WP:NACTOR. I've searched but was unable to find any significant coverage in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Minor role in one film and nothing else.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 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) 20:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avik Anwar

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

Article about a Bangladeshi motorsports driver. He as won no championships or even won a race outright, although has had some class wins. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong & speedy keep Even sources provided on the article alone establish WP:NBASIC, let alone the numerous (mostly in Bengali) out there which aren't included. Was featured in or has made it to the cover pages of multiple notable magazines, made numerous TV appearances, video interview from media giants like BBC (I know these kind of coverage are PS, just stating for the sake of it), headlines from printed dailies, in depth coverage, part of top Bengali sports people lists by reputable media...you just name it. Fo shizz the subject meets NBASIC or GNG by several orders of magnitude, no additional criteria needed, for instance, WP:NMOTORSPORT, which the nominator referred to. PS: Check out the talk page discussion between me and nominator. Tame (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and I urge John B123 to withdraw this post-haste. SNGs such as WP:NMOTORSPORT are subsidiary to WP:GNG. GNG is met via the incredibly adequate (for an article of its size) sourcing in the article and a claim to significance is already made in the article, "Bangladesh's first international motor sports event winner,[15][16][17][18][19]". -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 02:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't be really surprised seeing John nominating it. At the time of nomination, they did the appropriate thing as a page reviewer. It had2-3 lines with factual accuracy disputed. Although now, IMO, the nomination should be withdrawn sooner rather than later. And the article should be speedy kept. Tame (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously doesn't meet WP:NMOTORSPORT (as of yet), but there's definitely enough already cited in the article for a WP:GNG pass: Ice Today [19], United News of Bangladesh [20], Business Standard [21] and Kaler Kantho [22]. There should be some reference cleaning to wipe out the massive WP:REFBOMBING though, a lot of it is puffery, poorly written articles or duplicates of each other (such as the one about his Facebook post). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My ISP has blocked access to Ice Today as a possible scam site so I can't comment on that one. The other three seem to be full of puffery and inaccuracies. I don't see any sources that put don't national pride above objective reporting. --John B123 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  My ISP has blocked access to Ice Today as a possible scam site so I can't comment on that one.-Made my day. Tame (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The other three seem to be full of puffery and inaccuracies, Well the pride part is partially considerable, but I don't see any factual inaccuracies, at least not in those listed 4 sources. The article has refs from numerous pubs which are considered reliable, if you think otherwise, might take a gander at em by posting in reliability noticeboard? Tame (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Even if u discard the whole racing driver part, his side gigs, such as web shows alone have received considerable amount of coverage. I will be baffled to see anyone else also thinking he doesn't meet GNG or NBASIC.Tame (talk) 21:59, 7 February 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. Sandstein 20:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon

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

BLP with lots of references, but they are all to his own works. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a site to sell his books. Nothing found in GNews, mostly same refs found in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. YBA is not all that important but does pass the GNG. In understatement, not only for the stuff mentioned. Dude has some following and this will keep going wrong. From the talk page on Hewiki, it appears that YBA is involved in the content of these articles through his following. I gave my opinion more time as Gila improved the article from an even worse situation (thank you!) but it is still FAR off from where it needs to be. TNT here is both the correct as-is and strategic solution for this promotional BLP. gidonb (talk) 14:29, 10 February 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. The "delete" arguments are not only more numerous, but also stronger: the source analysis by Pilaz demonstrates in an uncontested manner that the coverage of this fictional law firm in secondary sources is extremely superficial. Redirection to where it is mentioned in the character biography (She-Hulk#Single Green Female) might a reasonable alternative to deletion, but is contested, so creating a redirect is a matter for a separate discussion. Sandstein 20:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway

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

I found no significant coverage for this fictional law firm. SL93 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick Google Scholar search, dropping the final name, shows two reasonable treatments, [23] and [24], both of which are paywalled but I can provide excerpts if desired. Honestly, reading through the sources, though, "Fictional Lawyers in Comics" seems to be a better notable topic--the first spends more time talking about Two Face and Daredevil, as one might imagine, than She Hulk's law firm. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure such a thing counts as significant coverage for this article in particular, but I could be wrong. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, both these sources cover multiple fictional/comics law firms, of which this subject isn't the biggest or most notable. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access the second paper, and this firm is just mentioned in passing in one sentence. This is clearly NOT WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the context of other fictional/comics law firms, which is why I suggest that this topic be covered differently there. The first one is the better one, with about a paragraph of coverage of this firm, but merger to She Hulk is not a bad ATD if no one has time to create the article on fictional lawyers in comics I'd prefer. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extreme facruft in the current form, totally fails WP:GNG. Ping me if better sources are found, so far the article has nothing, nor has anything been presented here, and my own BEFORE failed to find anything but a few passing mentions here and there, in the midsts of various plot summaries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments from Jclemens, or merge to She-Hulk per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. I'm not sure if it will be appearing in She-Hulk (TV series) later this year, but if so it is likely to receive more coverage at that time. BOZ (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and the rest is unsourced WP:OR and indiscriminate information. Source 1 has two namechecks for the firm in one paragraph p. 191: Although she lost her job as an assistant prosecutor due to her celebrity status, She-Hulk was quickly offered a new job by the prestigious law firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway because she was a good attorney, not because she was a superhero, and The firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway, much like Harvey Birdman, specializes in representing superheroes and has been know to use comic books as legal precedent. So all we have is that it's a prestigious law firm for which She-Hulk works that represents superheroes and uses comic books as precedent, and that's our only secondary source on the fictional firm. Since source 2 offered above is a passing mention, we're far from the multiple, reliable and independent secondary sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Besides, the rest of the article is WP:OR-ish fancruft which violates WP:IINFO, so I don't see why you would want to merge the same issues into another article. The fact that she works at that firm is already mentioned in the She Hulk article anyway, so deleting this article would only remove original research from Wikipedia. Pilaz (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what are you asserting is OR? Unsourced material isn't generally OR, OR is a specific type of argumentation (not exposition) unsupported by RS'es. As has been mentioned above, many of the elements here are likely to feature in the upcoming TV show. By keeping this article, we provide a place for impending discussion, rather than expect to see a number of other poorly researched articles created. I'll further note that one RS already existed in the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are hints that the roster section is OR, thanks to the curious wording "He appears to be", "apparently wiped by himself", "apparently killed saving her teammates". That's a lot of uncertainty for something that isn't OR. Pilaz (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd missed that. So, that can be edited out to resolve the OR concern? I certainly don't have any objection to you doing so judiciously during the course of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Then again, the related problem here is that it's impossible to tell what is OR and what isn't, since most of the prose isn't compliant with WP:V. Pilaz (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely to be a search term, and anyone knowledgeable enough to search for it will surely be able to She-Hulk on their own. Even if it is included in the upcoming television show, keeping it "just in case" violates CRYSTAL and assumes coverage will appear IF the firm itself appears. I think that's unlikely, as the Nelson & Murdock firm (which is far more notable within the fiction) has been in both film and television but still fails to merit more than being a redirect itself. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 12 February 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. Sandstein 19:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goth (board game)

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable board game. SL93 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am able to find multiple places currently selling this as a product, but nothing seems to come up as an RS on initial search. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of no significant coverage. It is not notable. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Outside of sales pages and database sites like BGG, I am finding no coverage at all on this game. As the creator, developer, and publisher all appear to be non-notable themselves, there is no place to redirect or Merge to as an WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably the most awesome delete !vote I've seen. Good job. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 8 February 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. Sandstein 19:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Roget's Thesaurus

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

This is an outline of a reference work rather than an encyclopedia article on a notable topic. It does not cite any sources. Moving to the WP namespace is a possible alternative to deletion, but I don't really see the purpose of this page. Rublov (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:NOTDIR, not an outline article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure The utility of a thesaurus outline is something I hadn't considered before. If this had been one person's work I would opt to userify it for them, but the source of this appears to be public domain, enhanced over the last ~19 years for Wikipedia utility purposes. If this were a vanity outline of any dissimilar work, it would be clearly deletable, but I am uncertain whether this might be of use. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it gets an average of about 16 pageviews per day, so... not a lot of use? -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOTIINFO. An almost endless list with very little context and usefulness. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to see here. Nwhyte (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest people#Disputed and unverified claims. Sandstein 19:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pornchai Saosri

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

Unsourced stub Robynthehode (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The source in the list is no longer available at that URL, and there is no archive version; I found https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/thailands-tallest-man-arrives-bangkok-treatment/ and https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/759032/world-tallest-man-dies-in-surin but not enough for a separate article. A865 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest people#Disputed and unverified claims, where it was originally targeted. Probably should have simply be returned to a redirect without being sent to AfD, since it is totally unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 7 February 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 Anglian Combination. Sandstein 19:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caister FC

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

I gave the article a PROD because I didn't think that there was sufficient coverage for WP:GNG and I can't see any evidence of playing in the FA Vase or at a high enough level for the rule of thumb at WP:FOOTYN from FCHD.

It's not that there is no coverage at all but I just think that the coverage is trivial, local paper stuff that doesn't need covering in a global encyclopaedia that doesn't wish to show any particular bias towards English men's football. In searches of the Great Yarmouth Mercury you can find stuff like a brief AGM notice and an advert asking for someone to volunteer as a linesman. In the Eastern Daily Press they are mentioned in passing in a vandalism news article and a car accident. Neither of those articles actually focus on the club itself so, for that reason, I don't think that they constitute significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find match reports in newspapers, User:Spiderone (look under the name they operated for about 100 years - Caister United). It's not like the 11th tier of English football is that far away from an obvious keep. Thoughts? Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few hits but most look like passing mentions Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete my article because Caister FC is well-loved local club for us in Caister! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudigator (talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is proof that we are actually a local club! https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/caisterfootballclub/teams/63176 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudigator (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly proof of mere existence is not enough to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, the topic also needs to be notable as defined here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trudigator due to your use of 'we' I have requested that you declare your WP:COI on your talk page Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anglian Combination, the club's league. Nate • (chatter) 17:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what should I do to ensure that my article will not be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudigator (talk • contribs)

Take a look at WP:GNG. Basically, you need to find multiple reliable independent third-party sources that cover the subject in detail (not just trivial passing mentions) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end so everyone knows who is commenting -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just by googling Caister FC, you can clearly see that they aren’t an irrelevant club. Most people in the borough of Great Yarmouth know about them and I felt that they are worthy of deserving a wikipedia article as they didn’t have one already. Have a read about them here https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/caisterfootballclub/teams/63176 and this should show that they are notable locally. Trudigator (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchero is a web host for football clubs. It's not independent (WP:IS) and definitely not reliable (WP:RS). There is no fact checking or professional journalism involved. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately just stating that the club is "well known locally" and pointing people to the club's own website doesn't address the WP:GNG issue. As per my comment above, the requirement is multiple reliable independent third-party sources that cover the subject in detail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very disheartened if my article got deleted but I am finding it very hard to prove to you that the club is notable. Just because there arent many sources online, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t notable in real life! I could do with some help please as I have worked very hard on my article and am proud of it. Trudigator (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a small mention of the club at Caister-on-Sea and it is already mentioned at Anglian Combination which is more than enough really. Also WP:IWORKEDSOHARD is not a valid reason to keep. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note though, I do genuinely believe that the article should be kept because although there may not be lots of many online sources regarding information about the club, there is no doubt that it is a part of Caister culture and many people do attend the matches weekly. I feel that this page would provide information to people that have an interest in non-league football. Trudigator (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online (offline sources are equally valid), but if there aren't any independent sources available then the article will almost certainly be deleted for not meeting WP:GNG. Unfortunately this is pretty much always the case for village teams playing at this sort of level....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as independent sources and what information does their content have to be about? If I find the relevant information, how do I use it in my article? Trudigator (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An independent source is one which is not published by or on behalf of the subject of the article. So in this case it would something not published by the club or the league in which it plays. If such sources exist, I would be happy to help with using them in the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a source from the FA about Caister’s stats this season: https://fulltime.thefa.com/displayTeam.html?divisionseason=705540393&teamID=148803757 If you could incorporate this into the article in any way, it would be greatly appreciated Trudigator (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that source is neither independent (it is published by the league in which Caister play) or in-depth coverage (it's just a list of their results) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Contrary to what the majority of people are saying, I actually believe that this article seems okay enough to keep as it has clear citations to sources. I’ve also had a brief google search myself and have found enough pieces of information from independent sources for a clear enough article to be published. I am VERY new to wikipedia though so any advice would be much appreciated. MarkingoTheMango (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Struck as sock. Star Mississippi 22:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment above comment was the first ever edit by this user -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  there has been some other shenanigans unfortunately as well Star Mississippi 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’m sorry about this, it’s just me and my son are very passionate about Caister FC and we would be devastated to see the article get deleted as we have worked on it with care. I know this is no reason to keep it but we are really struggling to find online sources to prove it’s notability. I can assure you that the club is 100% notable and that the article should be kept. My son is autistic and he was crying last night because of this threat to delete the article. This really isn’t the right thing to do and the article should be kept for the fans of non-league football. Many thanks Trudigator (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus note: Every time we watch Caister FC play, there’s around 50 fans attending each game at the Allendale. I can give you photo proof if you like this wednesday. Trudigator (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research and in no way an indication of notability. You have weighed in. Consensus will determine whether it should be kept, not repeat postings. Star Mississippi 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, when will the consensus be and may I suggest that if the article cannot remain can it be merged with another article. Please answer both points. Trudigator (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus be when there's consensus. But it won't close for at least a week after opening - and if there's a lack of consensus it could be relisted for week after week. Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this will have to be a Redirect to the Anglian Combination article as suggested above, because it is a plausible search term. Trudigator's arguments are understandable, but "around 50 fans" does not, in itself, point to overwhelming notability. I would suspect that there are considerably more people than that in the club's catchment area watching televised/streamed matches. I am also autistic, but have never cried at an article's deletion, for all that I have on occasions voted Keep for articles that were deleted. I agree with spiderone: this is a global encyclopaedia not an Anglosphere one, and those who are happy for it to be "Anglospherepedia" are, by implication, happy for it to favour association football in one country over all others, seeing how it has not been a dominant sport in other Anglophone countries (even though its followers in England are probably more likely to "other" mainland Europe, perhaps especially in Caister-on-Sea, than people who dislike the sport are). Given the site's patchiness on football subjects of substantially greater notability in countries (i.e. most non-Anglosphere/Commonwealth countries) where it is the dominant sport, we simply cannot maintain articles like this. Virtually everything in the world is passionately important to someone, but importance at hyper-local level does not justify a place in a global encyclopaedia (and I should add that there is less and less distinction between on- and offline life, especially for people who have come through this century; ask Keir Starmer). RobinCarmody (talk) 14:15, 8 February 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. Sandstein 19:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman (region)

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

This stub was created by a blocked user under the original title Ottoman Turkestan, which, now as a redirect, was just deleted by Liz as being incoherent. The current title is similarly incoherent, much the same as if someone were to create Roman region or Mughal region. If a "region" such as this truly exists, it is already covered under Ottoman Empire, making this stub WP:REDUNDANT. Havradim leaf a message 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Havradim leaf a message 16:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Havradim leaf a message 16:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Havradim leaf a message 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Havradim leaf a message 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Havradim leaf a message 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Havradim leaf a message 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Havradim leaf a message 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that there is any consistent use of this term in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "Ottomania", included in the stub as a synonym for the title, appears in actuality to refer to either a television series or a craft store. Havradim leaf a message 17:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term is not used in enough sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Ottoman is a corruption of the dynastic founder Osman. It is thus not a region. Perhaps this is about modern Turkey seeking hegemony over the area of the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent, but this is not a good basis for an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Neo-Ottomanism was a real thing there could be an article about it. But even that seems to be a label invented by people who don’t like it. Nwhyte (talk) 01:22, 13 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Zoumalan

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

This article appears to be exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article, rather than as an advertisement. The subject of the article is a plastic surgeon who appears to have created a Wikipedia page only to aid their verification on social media platforms. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Citation profile is too unremarkable to pass WP:PROF#C1 in a medical field, and "Fellow of the American College of Surgeons" doesn't appear to be the top-of-the-top kind of recognition that WP:PROF#C3 asks for [25]. "FPRS" actually refers to a one-year position at the University of Washington [26], not a highly selective honor for lifetime achievement like WP:PROF#C3 is about. Marquis Who's Who is not an award, for goodness' sake. One thing he did (coauthoring a study that found MRSA in face-lift patients) got a Reuters story, which the article spins into multiple stories by citing a syndicated copy of it in two different ways. WP:BLP1E applies even if we are extremely generous. In short, it's vanispamcruftisement, and it needs to go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, other than that MRSA paper nothing even approaching notability. And that paper isn't enough.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:18, 7 February 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. Sandstein 19:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator

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

The article consists of unsourced proofs which are not encyclopedic in content. They are not notable as proofs, and they are also not illustrative of any particular technique covered in an article. Since Wikipedia is neither textbook nor research paper, there is no need to justify claims made in articles with calculations such as these. Felix QW (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PianoDan (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find WP:NOTTEXTBOOK a somewhat squishy rule to follow; how textbook-y is too textbook-y can be a matter of taste. However, for any reasonable drawing of the line, this is on the wrong side of it. None of the proofs in this page are themselves noteworthy for historical reasons. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse, the article in question (Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator) should be transwikied to Wikibooks (and/or Wikiversity?), where I think it would also be of use. Duckmather (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not ask for transwikiing the material to Wiibooks is that while Proofs involving the Moore-Penrose inverse is quite self-contained and didactic, meaning that I could craft a book page out of it in a day's work, and I could see a book where it could fit, this one is neither. The statements and proofs do not follow on from each other in a didactic manner, they would require substantial development to become a textbook treatment of the Laplace-Beltrami operator, and they build on concepts and results that are themselves not represented on Wikibooks and would have to be written up first. Felix QW (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kokaldzhiev

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

Played in 2 games 13 years ago then played as an amateur/semi-pro before disappearing. Google News has nothing on him and a Bulgarian source search has almost nothing. The best that I can find is a squad listing in Topsport, a passing mention in Blitz and an announcement about getting a 2nd yellow card in Plovdiv24. None of this is anywhere near to WP:GNG. Whilst its disputed in cases when the WP:NFOOTBALL pass is comfortable, there is clear consensus within our community that in trivial passes, such as this one, failing GNG is of far greater importance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone does not play at least 3 games we really need to start demanding a very high level of coverage which we do not have at all here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 8 February 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 13:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud Das

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

Not a notable journalist to be in Wikipedia. No such independent and reliable citations. Moreover, the veteran journalist Kumud Das' (This-> https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Kumud-Das-479222214.cms) name similarates with this Wiki person - hence, I appeal for a thorough investigation. - NeverTry4Me - TT page 06:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Journalists are hard to evaluate. But like any other one in WP:CREATIVE, their work needs to be discussed. If we can find critical reception of their published work, this can take a 180 degree turn. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic / resolved

Comment Dear Scobserv, putting such allegation against me will prove nothing, but you have compelled me to do a Google search about redundant as you mentioned, and I have found several person with the same name. However, I have figured out the mentioned redundant and found a few from Google search. But, even if I and him, what makes it different for doing as per Wikipedia rules? My dear friend, have I asked you why you just signed up today and this is the only edit by you? Nope. As per Wikipedia policy, you have the right to vote as Keep or Delete on AfD nomination. But fighting and using allegations are against Wikipedia policy. Though you made an allegation against me as someone you probably hate or dislike, I would like to invite you to vote for KEEP or DELETE for a consensus. That is what Wikipedia is about. Moreover, you are also welcome to expand the subject page with reliable and neutral sources. Regards -NeverTry4Me - TT page 07:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there is critical attention sourced in the article, e.g. Kumud Das honoured with Sangbad Prahari (Stellar News) that describes his career, including books he has written and a previous award the New Indian Express reports as "best human interest story" in electronic media. I also found the link to the Sentinel article about a third award (the one in the article is incorrect). My !vote is a weak keep because these sources indicate WP:BASIC notability for his career and secondary source recognition, but I have not been able to find additional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC) (besides this: 20 Journalists Chosen For Assam Pension Scheme (Pratidin Bureau, 2020) "The pension is provided every year as a token of recognition of their contribution to journalism during their service.") Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to meet the WP:GNG guideline. If the journalist was notable and had a lot of significant coverage, then it would meet the guideline but it does not. Only create articles that are about journalists if they are notable and meet the guideline like I said before. --Vaco98 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. and others. - Hatchens (talk) 04:01, 7 February 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 13:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Cester

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a league listed at WP:FPL. Appears to fail WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources found when searching in Google News and an Italian source search also coming back empty handed. ProQuest also has nothing and redirects the search results to 'Elena Center' instead. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 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 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Husin Mugni

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

Article created due to playing one game in the league and 3 minutes in the cup several years ago. No significant coverage cited and GSA and Football Database also confirm that the WP:NFOOTBALL pass is extremely weak and trivial. In terms of WP:GNG, I found this local news article, which is basically just a quote from him and contains little independent content. An Indonesian source search was unsuccessful in finding independent WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any reasonable inclusion criteria. I was really hoping the proposal to up to 3 games the minimum inclusion criteria where it is currently at one would pass, but some editors seem t oppose any change, and some are willing to fight good in hope of getting better, so I fear than change will not happen anytime soon. As I said elsewhere this one game standard would be like if we considered any academic notable who had been the teacher of record for at least one class in a fully accredited university that has graduate programs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 8 February 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 12:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Corbellari

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

Article fails to meet the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines; appearances in the WCL have been removed from NCRIC, meaning this cricketer no longer meets the inclusion criteria. There is little else about him to establish wider WP:GNG and the article is almost entirely based on WP:NOTSTATS. StickyWicket (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the updated cricket guidelines, and although I'm seeing a couple of mentions in a search, I'm not seeing enough to suggest a GNG pass. Not seeing a suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fade258 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 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 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ikbal

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

Despite 36 mins of football (less than half of a football match in terms of actual game time) almost a decade ago, there is absolutely nothing presented in terms of WP:GNG, which is far more important in this sort of case. I found no relevant coverage in Google News or an Indonesian source search. In my view, this is a clear delete based on the lack of coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Sports SNGs specifically state subjects still need to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 8 February 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 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franky Mahendra

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

No professional games (see Soccerway and FlashScore) so clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The best coverage I can find is this injury announcement, this promo piece and this quote about him studying for an exam. All of those pieces are from the same local newspaper and are insufficient for WP:GNG as they contain very little independent content (i.e. not just copying and pasting comments directly from the player), especially considering that he was an amateur/semi-pro footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ThePremiumBoy (talk) 07:37, 7 February 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 12:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Indra Pattikuppa

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

9 years ago, this player played in 4 football matches then completely disappeared. The article is referenced only to a database profile page and there is zero coverage in Google News and this Indonesian source search. Given that this comprehensively fails WP:GNG, this overrides the weak presumption of notability from his handful of games 9 years ago. Footballers with 4 games but failing GNG have been deleted before such as Masaya Sato (footballer, born 1989), Ryuki Matsuya and Asuka Nose. I believe that Ahmad Indra falls into the same category. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG through lack of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 9 February 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. This has already been discussed at least twice, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniminter & Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Miniminter, with consensus to delete each time. The page has been created numerous times, under several titles. JBW (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Minter (YouTuber)

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

This is the latest attempt of many to create a Wikipedia page for this person. Previous drafts have been rejected and deleted multiple times for lack of WP:RS, and were ultimately salted against re-creation (see Draft:Miniminter for some of the history). This attempt comes from a very similar personal draft that has simply been moved over to mainspace. The subject still fails WP:GNG. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note added later: there are earlier discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Miniminter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniminter. There are other discussions, too, but I'm not going to waste time searching for them all yet again. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I went to the article, and had to remove a clear BLP violation while there. The rest of it is mostly unsourced, and given the problematic history of the article, whoever is behind recreating this article repeatedly, should probably be warned (on whatever account they are using ATM) that they are heading into WP:SALT territory. The lack of notability has been noted previously, and it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Mako001 (C) (T) 14:18, 6 February 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 12:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Callaghan (footballer, born 1987)

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

Definitely doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL nor has he represented Northern Ireland at senior level. In terms of WP:GNG, none of the sources cited show anything close to significant coverage. I did find another BBC article with Callaghan mentioned but, again, it has barely any coverage. Coverage at youth level such as this also fails to address him in detail. Narrowing searches of his name down in ProQuest by including Lisburn in the search does gain a few hits but they all seem to just be passing mentions in match reports and squad lists rather than detailed coverage that we can build a biography from. If he does, indeed, have significant coverage and this can be evidenced, I will happily withdraw.

Please note that most hits that amount to decent coverage will actually be about Aaron Callaghan (footballer, born 1966) instead of the Callaghan subject to this AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in the global context. Northern Ireland may be an Anglophone area, but its domestic league is a backwater in footballing terms (which is obviously not to insult those who follow it and love it) and should not be given priority over more notable leagues which do not benefit from Wikipedia's Anglosphere bias. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played at a high enough level or achieved a significant level of coverage to merit an article as far as I can see. Dunarc (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Charlton (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV provided or identifiable. A previous AFD only identified passing coverage, though the article was kept on the grounds of WP:NFOOTY and the assumption the coverage could be found.

However, since that AFD no one has been able to add significant coverage to the article, and per WP:NSPORTS GNG is required to be met when notability is challenged at AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing has changed since the last AFD 4 months ago. GiantSnowman 10:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that nothing has changed; per WP:NSPORT articles covered by it are required to meet WP:GNG, and despite the assumption at the last AFD that there must be significant coverage no one has been able to find any in the five months since, and unless such sources can be found we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments last time. As GS pointed out it was only four months ago since the last AfD, so this feels strangely disruptive on ppl's time to renominate this. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep didn't realise there was a timeframe since a previous AfD to improve the article or it will be deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The deadline is now, and it's up to you to prove the article has potential for improvement. Avilich (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been 10 years. This just highlights how ridiculous the "we didn't have enough time" argument is in these AfDs: 10 years was plenty of time for some random local football historian to come across this article and expand it, or for regular football editors to find GNG sources -- but of course this didn't happen; the first AfD brought in 7 football editors who assured everyone SIGCOV must exist for this person, but still none was found over the course of the discussion despite several people searching; these editors had another four months to look into offline sources, but clearly didn't because nothing changed; and now at this second AfD we are again assured sources must exist, it's just finding them is still some hypothetical future editor's burden, not ours in the present. But if this "finding encyclopedic coverage for an encyclopedia subject" task is so herculean then surely the additional 2 minutes it takes to actually create the article is so trivial our future intrepid editor could also do that? The microstub is currently, by definition, not encyclopedically valuable as a standalone article, so it serves no purpose existing as such in the interim between now and whenever sufficiently many old documents are digitized and put online that keep !voters can finally ~~switch to insisting three sentences in in a contemporary match report is SIGCOV~~ be satisfied coverage does not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show a passing of GNG. This article has existed for 10 years, that is the time frame of providing adequate sourcing that needs to be considered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - has anyone brought forward any sources showing GNG? I've checked the previous discussion and it seemed to lean on NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The same user nominated this article recently, and it was a unanimous keep. To nominate it again so soon is an example of WP:Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and I recommend that User:BilledMammal be topic banned from AFD if he continues to nominate article for players that meet WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11#Pete_Vainowski we can safely discount !votes which only cite WP:NFOOTBALL. Also this guy made his three walk-on appearances when the English Football League was far from "fully professional" so doesn't in fact meet NFOOTBALL. Sadly he fails WP:GNG, which is the more important issue (really the only issue). If/when someone creates 1931–32 Liverpool F.C. season we might be able to redirect there. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find the first sentence of the !vote above quite callous all things considered; additionally, I heavily disagree with the rationale for deletion that just because it's been 10 years and no one has added a new source that proves there are no sources. All that said, it has been common practice to delete articles that skirt by WP:NFOOTY with only a few apps while otherwise thoroughly failing WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT#Q5, which makes it clear that "sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met", and GNG is not met here. Avilich (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been improved since the last nomination that was only four months ago. Renomination after such a short time period feels disruptive. NemesisAT (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no edits between the discussion being closed last time and being nominated again this time. Unless you are referring to the edits which added an infobox and a line saying He also made one appearance for the Irish League XI during the last discussion, which don't seem like a significant enough change to be defined as "improved" in the context of a deletion discussion? BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NFOOTY is a guideline, as is WP:NOTABILITY. We are invited to accept the guidance. Nothing is "required". So, the nomination is proper, the deletes are proper, the keeps are proper and any consensus remains to be assessed. The comment we can safely discount !votes which only cite WP:NFOOTBALL is entirely inppropriate and incorrect. Thincat (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a policy requirement, and NFOOTY is subject to GNG, which means that all "Keep per NFOOTY" vaguewaves should be discounted because they don't understand how the rules work. Avilich (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is a matter of policy that a reason for deleting an article is that it fails the notability guidelines. Hence the nomination and deletes are proper. But if an editor, after considering the notability guidelines, considers that the article does not fail, to say so and to recommend keeping the article is a proper contribution. Thincat (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, although I believe that they should provide evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage, rather than asserting notability. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delreason 8 gives policy weight to the matter, which means that keep voters must provide verifiable evidence that the topic is notable. If they don't, their arguments should be discounted per policy. Avilich (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is a subguideline, the actual SNG is NSPORT...which says GNG is necessary to merit an article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The core principal of Wikipedia is Sigcov. We should not keep articles that do not meet this principal. This is not meant to be spoirtspedia, and so we should not keep articles based on a lone database, or otherwise not linked to actual sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 7 February 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 12:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milano Fernando

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

Article was the subject of a previous AfD in 2016, which was rightfully kept as the article met the WP:NCRIC guidelines; however, these guidelines have since been revised and appearances in the WCL have been removed from NCRIC, meaning this cricketer no longer meets the inclusion criteria. There is little else about him to establish wider WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the new updated cricket guidelines, and not seeing enough for a GNG pass. Not seeing a suitable redirect here either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both GNG and the revised NCRIC, could find no sources outside of directory listings and passing mentions in results tables. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. All sports SNGs state that the subject needs to pass GNG for us to actually keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 8 February 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 12:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masaomi Kobayashi

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

Fails revised WP:NCRIC inclusion guidelines. I created this article years back when WCL appearances were considered notable matches. StickyWicket (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's this and various other team announcements and a couple of other bits, but I'm not sure there's enough here for a GNG pass. There may be more in Japanese media but as he also fails cricket guidelines I'm at delete currently. Not seeing a suitable redirect here either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find significant coverage. The name is 小林正臣 (or with a space: 小林正臣), for anyone else trying to search. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:31, 7 February 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Philippines relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Since this article was last kept in May '13, there have been no substantial changes, which reiterates my earlier point about there being no actual relations worth talking about, or a potential for any. The countries still have no embassies in one another, merely consulates (and the latter fact is also undocumented in the article, amazingly enough). I have googled in Croatian for the concept of these bilateral relations again, and found literally nothing (even if consulates now exist). This is still a rather simple WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT#NEWS violation that isn't going to get fixed. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no embassies, state visits. The agreements are minor in nature. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion. I've added a few updates from 2018-2019, including a defence MOU, a third sub-ministerial meeting, and a joint issue of commemorative stamps issued by both countries in explicit recognition of their 25 years of bilateral relations. This is the kind of continued coverage volume to be expected for what is a small, but real, bilateral relationship. --99of9 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious, your edits betray a complete lack of understanding of the concepts of WP:SYNTH. Combining these little scraps of data to compose a story that misrepresents reality is practically the definition of it, and the policy advice against this is now actively being ignored. Also, some of these items are so miniscule, it's actually amusing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sure you can find another website hosting service to post this at, there could be some sort of a bilateral relations fandom.com site, no? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is unnecessarily personal. We have already been over this ground. Both User:DGG and User:Carrite explained to you last time why this does not violate WP:NOR. You are welcome to your opinion, but I don't think it coincides with policy. For the sake of progress here, I have invited third party review of my edits at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#SYNTH_review_please. --99of9 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't intend it to be personal, it's just that you specifically made an explicit effort to add to the pile... the "explanations" from last time were wrong and still are. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO the topic is immensely encyclopedic, a place readers to learn about what relations do and don't exist. Article does lack listed-and-used GNG type sources and the resultant overview material that may arise from them but IMO they almost certainly exist. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this statement not an example of WP:ITEXISTS WP:BELONG? Can you back up your opinion that these sources exist with anything other than assertion (WP:SOURCESEXIST)? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a lot of value in these, but I see even less value in deleting this and similar articles. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this statement not an example of WP:VALUABLE? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there 's sufficient material, and this is the best place to put it. Placing sourced facts in an article, from which a reader can decide for themselves the nature of the relationship, is the very opposite of OR. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm badgering the discussion here by pointing out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I'm sorry, this is just so frustrating. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joy. This is textbook synthesis. No sources have been produced that actually discuss these countries relationship directly or in any sort of detail. Yilloslime (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the GNG: the relationship is covered in-depth from several angles in different journalistic sources, such as Manila Standard, Philippine Daily Inquirer (x2), and The Diplomat. Many government-to-government contacts have also happened since 2013 and are publicized in government-affiliated websites. Embassies and state visits do not determine notability - the nature and coverage of the relationship does. Why the nominator believes that this article violates WP:SYNTH or WP:NOTNEWS is impossible to address without seeing proper examples. I don't think it violates either. Pilaz (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy against improper synthesis is part of the original research policy, not the notability guideline, so your argument is off-base. Please acquaint yourself with the relevant policies before making assertions in that regard. Just because something is mentioned in random newspapers that happen to have some stature that does not mean it's appropriate for the encyclopedia. I'm especially curious where you find the depth in these articles with regard to Croatia-Phillippines relations, when they are so horribly, horribly bad. For example, there's a single reference to a Manila Standard article from 1992 that talks about FR Yugoslavia but also happens to have a single sentence that lists Croatia as one of the countries given international recognition by the Phillippines. That is not in-depth coverage of bilateral relations. There's a Philippine Daily Inquirer article reference that has had to be fished out of the Wayback Machine, which reports about an actually relevant diplomatic event in the Vienna (sic) embassy and cites ministerial level statements, but for in-depth context it states the following: "The Philippines and Croatia established diplomatic relations in 1993. There are 51 Filipinos in Croatia as of the latest count. According to the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, four Filipinos have business permits in Croatia. The ships that dock in the ports of Rijeka, Zadar, Dubrovnik and Split are also mostly manned by Filipino seafarers." This stuff about fifty people is actually sad (at the same time, the latter statement is actually rather extraordinary and would itself need way better sourcing if we were to relay it). The other article from that paper reports on a "subministerial meeting" and the verbs used are "is looking at", "areas of cooperation discussed", "discussed the possibility", "identifying the channels of communication and discussing how to intensify and deepen our mutual cooperation. We saw that there is great possibility to cooperate" etc etc. This is classic newspaper fodder that is not appropriate to form the backbone of an encyclopedia article by any stretch of imagination. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My GNG argument wasn't a response to your WP:SYNTH or WP:NOTNEWS concerns. I'm glad I brought it up, though, as it was in response to every sentence but the last one of your nomination - and the verbose paragraph above confirms that you don't believe this relationship should pass the GNG, and yet it somehow does. I think your SYNTH concerns are misplaced - you're using SYNTH to argue that the article is a living Frankenstein, when in reality SYNTH just says "if Source A says A and source B says B, don't say that A B = C." No C is argued anywhere in the article, and the article is extremely factual and even too dry for my taste. I also find this article of encyclopedic value, so it's hard for me to understand why you're bringing up WP:NOTNEWS - nothing here is breaking news, nor routine. NOTNEWS is our firewall against all the paparazzi-fueled articles about every celebrity's favorite restaurant, and the he-did-this or she-said-that articles. Government-to-government relations fall on the opposite side of the spectrum, as they appear in the limelight only once every few years. I have added a few more sources to the defense section of the article, fyi. Pilaz (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C is "there are bilateral relations between Croatia and Phillippines that have a modicum of coverage in WP:SCHOLARSHIP that justifies the existence of this article" and it is apparently wrong. I'm happy that you notice how there's a purpose to preventing everything from the newspapers to end up in the encyclopedia, but am confused how you fail to see that self-serving government-generated news articles fill the exact same role like any other promotion by non-government entities. The fact that it happens so rarely is an argument *for* them being insignificant, not against that. The fact that all of these WP:PRIMARY sources never got collated into a WP:SECONDARY source, not even a newspaper column (because let's pretend that academic coverage may be too high a bar), makes it quite clear that it's not actually a concept worth explaining in the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C is in my view an incorrect reading of SYNTH, so I'm going to consider our two opinions on the matter irresolvable. Perhaps others can chime in on this. As for your criticism of news coverage, I really don't see that coverage as promotional, at all, especially given that it comes from established sources. We also aren't required to have WP:SCHOLARSHIP for an article to stand on its own, if other sources cover the topic in a GNG-compliant manner, and the news sources here do. Many Filipino institutions have not been scrutinized by academics, including the Philippine National Police; if we solely had to rely on scholarship, I suspect we wouldn't have an article for it. And by the way, news sources are secondary, not primary. I'm going to tab out of this convo, but others are welcome to join the discussion we've been having: I think we made a lot of progress by examining the root of our arguments. Pilaz (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to actually read some of these policies, such as WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:NEWSORG, and pay particular attention to the part about churnalism. We're not having a debate about subtle details of academic sourcing, there just is none here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments, especially the ones in the previous discussion. SBKSPP (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time a notability guideline is invoked, but the argument for deletion is about the original research policy and the what-it-is-not policy. Can y'all please read the relevant documents? For example the parts what presumed means and what significant coverage means? Also, what parts of the arguments in the previous discussion do you think I did not address? I went over it again and I don't see a single unanswered claim. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 13 February 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. Sandstein 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Asians

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Overseas Asians

The article is not useful in its scope. There are individual articles for all Asian national diasporas. Furthermore, there are no citations or links to other articles. The article essentially contains an infobox only which is not supported by citations.StormcrowMithrandir 09:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One malformed sentence about a misnamed topic (what happens to Asians who migrate overland to Europe or Africa?). No meaningful content at all. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:09, 15 February 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!} 06:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ife Empire

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

It appears to be WP:FRINGE or WP:OR, none of the sources specifically use the term "Ife Empire". Ifẹ seems to already cover the scope of this article. Jaqoc (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jaqoc (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jaqoc (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems like Ife may have been both the name of a kingdom, and of its capital (which is also called Ile-Ife), see "Ife was the capital and principal religious centre of the Yoruba kingdom of Ife, which prospered thanks to trade connections with other West African kingdoms."^[1] To quote this other source: "The welding of many pre-existing small settlements together to create the city of Ile-Ife and the kingdom of Ife marked a great leap forward in the political history of the Yoruba people."^[2] On the other hand, this British Museum exhibit guide describes it as both a "kingdom" and a "city-state",^[3] so maybe it was merely a city which exerted control over nearby territory? Both articles could definitely use some improvement though. The relationship between the two isn't clear by reading either page. Some copyediting and updated sources are also needed. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changing my vote back from "weak" to strong keep. This journal article by Robin Horton in Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria sums up the academic consensus of Ife at the time, which held that "Ife was the first great kingdom of the Yoruba". The article challenges some consensus views on the origins of Ife/its inhabitants, but not the idea that it was a kingdom. Perhaps rename the article to "Ife Kingdom"?^[4]

References

Speedy Keep. The contents is quite different from that of the article on the city. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Then it seems like the title of the article should be changed to the WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Kingdom of Ife". I have never heard of Ife being described as an "empire". Jaqoc (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sure. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep perhaps as Ife kingdom -- This is about the history of a polity. There is a list of sources, many of which seem to be academic ones. Redirecting to Ife is inappropriate since that is an article about a city. It may be that some of the content of that article would be better in this one; I do not know. There is probably a need to make a link so that this become a "main" article to that one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Chernova

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 05:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is known for two events, because the national qualifying pageant and Miss Universe (e.g. Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald) are distinct events, and based on Google translations of Ukrainian-language sources in the article, WP:BASIC notability appears supported. Per the Wikiproject Beauty Pageants essay on notability, Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are [...] generally presumed to be notable. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Qualification and main event are still the same event. The Banner talk 00:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are that community guidelines or local guidelines? The Banner talk 20:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being Miss Ukraine or first place of country beauty pageant, means she meets criterion #3 and maybe #1 of WP:ENT and meets also WP:NBEAUTY. Caphadouk (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are that community guidelines or local guidelines? The Banner talk 20:31, 8 February 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!} 06:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

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

Article reads like a vanity page. Notable items do not have independent verification. The numerous citations either do not mention subject, are not independent, or not notable. Additionally, the article has been heavily edited by the subject. Epachamo (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like pretty heavy overlap with other websites [27]. The text from "mormonscholarstestify.org" was added here after the page there was dated, so I don't think that is reverse copyvio, though some of the other items flagged by Earwig might be. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is some of the worst refbombing I have ever seen. I removed the most obviously bad ones trying to get a sense of what's really here, but it's still a pile of yikes. That would go in as a "comment" rather than "delete" were it not for the copyvio. Here's September 2010 on another site: [28]; 83.7% similarity to our current article, which only looked like this [29] at the time. He may well be notable but we're going to have to WP:TNT it in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the !vote just above, we're in a WP:TNT situation. The page is nearly nothing but talking up low- to mid-level accomplishments; it would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic, even granting that those add up to academic wiki-notability, which I am still doubtful of. And then there's the copyvio problem. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 February 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 speedy delete. G14: Unnecessary disambiguation page. Content was merged to Right to repair. wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right to repair (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation article; Expanding the main article is better than having this page. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misuse of disambiguation page, not unlike another AfD I opened yesterday. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a Wikipedia:Set index article. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Right to repair, since that is the main article on this topic. Also courtesy ping for @Wbm1058: who proposed merge in October 2021. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was created as a redirect from Right to Repair to Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act, before there was a right to repair article, but was made into a disambiguation page, possibly based on a misunderstanding at first but later expanded with other entries. All are subtopics or legislation related to this concept, and are linked in the article, with the exception of the entry linking to Consumer Rights Act 2015, but I don't think that is known as "right to repair". A865 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A865. Femke (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

Sorting out the history...

Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act was created 8 January 2006
Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act was created 11 March 2009‎
Right to Repair was created 21 May 2009 as a redirect to Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act
Category:Right to Repair was created 10 November 2012‎
Right to Repair was converted to a disambiguation page 12 September 2016, linking to the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 as well as the US Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act
Electronics right to repair was created 8 March 2018‎
Electronics right to repair was added to the disambiguation page 8 March 2018‎
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act was added to the disambiguation page 31 May 2020
Right to Repair disambiguation page was added to Category:Right to Repair 10 November 2020
On 24 July 2021‎ Fthobe begins drafting a new broad-concept article. Note this user has disclosed that they are in the business of refurbishing consumer electronics.
On 29 September 2021 Fthobe moved their draft to Draft:Right to Repair
On 1 October 2021 Fthobe moved Right to Repair to Right to Repair (disambiguation) over redirect (Preparation for introducing the Right to Repair main article as bespoken in the tea house)
On 1 October 2021 UnitedStatesian moved Draft:Right to Repair to Draft:Right to repair without leaving a redirect (move to correct capitalisation)
- The Ngram interestingly shows history back to 1800, with the proper name only approaching the usage of the generic term around the time of the introduction of legislative bills in the 2000's
2 October 2021 UnitedStatesian moved Draft:Right to repair to Right to repair – a round-robin move, leaving the old Right to repair at Draft:Right to repair; a normal administrative move would have deleted that page history.
As of 1 October 2021, Right to Repair was malplaced; which was reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages 4 October 2021
Due to a shortage of admins working that queue, it sat there until 17 October 2021 when I retargeted Right to Repair to Right to repair as an {{R from other capitalization}}, and ...
added an {{other uses}} hatnote to the new primary topic, and ...
Moved Right to Repair (disambiguation) to Right to repair (disambiguation)
Alas, within the same minute I moved the dab (@ 20:39), my hatnote was reverted! My punishment for doing operations two minutes out-of-order I suppose.
And then I proposed the merge. Sorry I dropped the ball on that; too many balls to juggle – thanks for the ping. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 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, performed by the article's creator. See also User talk:Doomsdayer520, message on 12 February 2022. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central Mountains Shared Use Trails System

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

This article arose from an announcement by Pennsylvania in the early 2000s that several pre-existing trails would be organized into a continuous multi-use loop and promoted to various sporting communities. Blazes were placed but the concept never came together. The name "Central Mountains Shared Use Trails System" has never been actively promoted by the state and has never appeared in any reliable sources. (It is occasionally mentioned in tourist promotions for the local counties.) The name is also no longer mentioned at the Pennsylvania government website that is the source of the article's only reference from 2002. It may exist but it has not generated the notice required for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted it - thanks for bringing this to my attention, - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS I will let someone else close the AfD. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:59, 12 February 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!} 05:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative case

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

The content seems reasonable, but after some attempt to find reliable sources, I think this article might be WP:OR or otherwise fails WP:GNG. The Scholar searches "initiative case" manchu and "initiative case" grammar return no relevant results. The doubt in Talk:Initiative case hasn't been addressed. The corresponding section Manchu language#Less used cases has a {{citation needed}} since 2008. When I searched using the Chinese article title "起點格" 文法, only results about the Japanese particle から are returned, but I can find no reliable source saying this counts as the initiative case. HTinC23 (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because sources generally called から the ablative (ja:奪格). HTinC23 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. HTinC23 (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source that people seem to like to cite is Ivan Zakharov's 1879 grammar, republished as Zakharov 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZakharov2010 (help). I have no access to it, but I find Zikmundová 2013, p. 48 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZikmundová2013 (help) citing Zakharov and stating in no uncertain terms that "According to Zaharov, there are four case formants in written Manchu […] Thus the cases in written manchu are five in total." and also explaining "One of the traditional problems of description of cases in the Altaic languages is the relatively vague distinction between a case suffix on one hand and a particle or a postposition on the other.". I find others, such as Li 2010, p. 42 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLi2010 (help) agreeing on four suffixes to make a total of five cases. So I think that we need a source at least as good as Zakharov to say that there aren't five cases in literary Manchu, and that this claimed case is genuinely a thing. I haven't turned up one. So at the moment this idea of an initiative case is unverifiable.
Furthermore, research also turns up Gorelova 2002, p. 193 explaining that there isn't really agreement on what "-deri" is, amongst those who actually do consider it a case marker. I found, as Goroleva says, someone calling it the prolative case. But no "initiative".
- Zakharov, Ivan Ilyich (2010). Vovin, Alexander (ed.). A grammar of Manchu. Languages of Asia classic texts. Vol. 1 (republished ed.). Global Oriental. ISBN 9781905246083.
- Zikmundová, Veronika (2013). Spoken Sibe: Morphology of the Inflected Parts of Speech. Karolinum Press. ISBN 9788024621036.
- Li, Gertraude Roth (2010). Manchu: A Textbook for Reading Documents. NFLRC monographs. National Foreign Languaghe Resource Centre. ISBN 9780980045956.
- Gorelova, Liliya Mikhaelovna (2002). Manchu Grammar, Part 8 (PDF). Brill. ISBN 9789004123076. ISSN 0169-8524.
Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High probability that it's a postposition. Article is also a stub with no references and references that are available don't provide a conclusive answer --Burned Toast (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 6 February 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!} 06:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Warriors

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

Non-notable team, playing in a league which doesn't hold official T20 status. Fails WP:NCRIC inclusion guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tournament doesn't hold T20 status but I don't think this should disqualify a club from having an article on them. Obviously notable players and staff have played/coached the team and the team draws coverage in the media for it's matches. Sure a player playing just for them shouldn't qualify for an article, but the team, other teams in the tournament itself, and the tournament can have pages on them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above opinion. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 14:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither Keep is based in policy. More discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article passes WP:GNG. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 15:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Happy this meets GNG, just so long as players don't end up with articles if they haven't played FC/LA/T20 before! StickyWicket (talk) 19:47, 11 February 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!} 06:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Garas

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

I acknowledge that I was the dipshit who reworked this from a district to a town in 2020, but when it came back into my orphaned short pages queue, I realized that was a fuckup. The only "El Garas" or "Ceel Garas" on Geonames in Galguduud is carded as a watering hole, not a town or even a populated place. I can't find any other source that indicates otherwise. In fact, it was deleted once before as such (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceel Garas), but this existed already as an unlabelled duplicate, so here we are again! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing mention of an El Garas village here and in other reports of the conflict. I can't find anything to show that it's legally recognized, though. Rusalkii (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has 'Ceelgaras' down as a town. Not sure if that is conclusive or not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wordpress blog. Not sure we can take it as an RS for anything. And in any case, even if we did, it still doesn't indicate legal recognition, so the place would have to meet GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 6 February 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 per snowball clause; the nomination advanced a rationale for a hatnote, not deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Z series

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

This is a current high-end model of foldable smartphone by Samsung but it can also refer to older model of Samsung Galaxy Z series which uses Tizen as an operating system Vitaium (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's not a valid deletion reason. You can use a hatenote like {{distinguish}} or {{about}} for Tizen#Smartphone or something if necessary, but the current subject is notable with plenty of coverage, and this article should not be deleted. MarginalCost (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MarginalCost is right. There is a serious risk in nominating at AFD an article that you don't think should be deleted. Depending on who turns up you may find it being deleted against all reason. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unclear reason for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a little short and could use some more content, but the subject (Samsung Galaxy Z product line) is clearly notable. In fact, it is so notable that there are actually four different articles about different models in this product line. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the reason for deletion is incorrect. This article is notable. It doesn't need to be deleted. But the article is little short. It needs to be improved. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no deletion rationale given. PianoDan (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XO Skeletons

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. The only way that this article would have a chance to pass WP:GNG is if it had important coverage on the subject and that the music itself would be notable to be kept. --Vaco98 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 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. Sandstein 19:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marit Jessen Rüdiger

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as page creator. Another Danish politician that should be an obvious keep. Former leader of the North Schleswig minority party in Denmark. Meets GNG by having received plenty of independent reliable press coverage, in both Danish and Schleswig-Holsteiner news. There are already some good examples on the page. I agree that her local political office does not provide her any notability, but that also isn't what makes her notable. Her leadership of Schleswig Party is what makes her notable, as I see it. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being leader of a minor political party is not an automatic notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing, and the sourcing present here isn't enough to get her over GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NPOLITICIAN. No significant coverage available; does not meet either part of policitian in the status; nor do the sources meet GNG. Garnarblarnar (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenConnect

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

Fails WP:GNG due to sourcing: no significant/reliable secondary sources and excessive reliance on primary and tertiary sources (which are mostly connected to the product itself). Also conflicts with WP:PROMO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTPLOT. Headphase (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is widely used and recommended as an alternative to Cisco AnyConnect and there are a lot of links about it:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 6 February 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 00:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Precision Ltd

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

Fails WP:NCORP,WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. UPE scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Draftify I think this may have a chance to be notable, as it seems like a somewhat significant total, but it was already draftified and then moved back into mainspace without any major further changes. It needs quite a bit of cleanup, and it clearly has COI issues, but it may have potential. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further sources: an El Pais article (Translation), which talks in depth about the work of the founder (unclear to me if that corresponds with the work of the company; two lines are clearly about the company). Mentions in scientific literature are all passing as far as I can find. I don't see enough to establish notability yet, it may be a matter of WP:TOOSOON; the company seems young. Femke (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the indef block, I don't see the benefit of draftifying. Femke (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note – Author has been blocked for undisclosed COI. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The supposed article from El Pais is classic PR. scope_creep^Talk 14:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat new to AfD discussions, so good chance I'm wrong. I would understand it if the El Pais source would be dismissed as too trivial. The high reputation of the newspaper may not make up for the fact that it's only two lines clearly about the company, rather than a co-founder (which is mostly primary anyway). But I don't quite understand why it would be PR. Femke (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is PR. It reads like a press-release. Newspaper's everywhere takes the advertising dollar including El Pais. Once you get more experience you will be able to tell the difference. scope_creep^Talk 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete garbage per WP:Identifying PR, draftifying unlikely to be of any use as noted above ☆ Bri (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few mentions in media, but nothing in-depth or independent enough to qualify the subject as meeting WP:NCORP. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The company does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. Gusfriend (talk) 05:30, 10 February 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.

[1] "Digital Bookshelf". Stanford Social Innovation Review. 19 (2): 71. 2021.

[2] Seay, Angela (December 2020). "Book review: Philanthropy Revolution: How to inspire donors, build relationships and make a difference". Alliance. Retrieved 30 January 2022.

[3] Coleman, Laura (August 25, 2017). "Robinson Gardens' Annual Gala To Honor Lisa Greer, Ellisa Bregman". Beverly Hills Courier. pp. 1, 15. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

[4] Mento, MD (2020). "What Big Donors Are Thinking: Three philanthropists talk about their approaches to giving in the time of Covid, racial unrest, and economic devastation". Chronicle of Philanthropy. Vol. 32, no. 12. pp. 22–25.

[5] Hanau, Shira. "Jewish philanthropists have increased their giving during the pandemic, but prioritizing causes has never been more difficult". sun-sentinel.com. Retrieved 2021-09-17.

[6] "Ife". World History Encyclopedia.

[7] A History of the Yoruba People.

[8] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Kingdom_of_Ife/7dVDtAEACAAJ?hl=en

[9] ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41857205

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]