Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 25	January 27 >

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 delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Star Jalsha

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

Article doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST - grouping lacks coverage in independent sources, topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't match anything WP:GNG related to television. 103.102.138.10 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a clear, bounded list of a topic with a reasonable number of blue links, and it is a reasonable redirect target for series on the network without said links. matt91486 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need of separate page, this information can also accessible on Main page i.e. Star Jalsha. 2402:3A80:668:4209:9949:8913:8FAD:8CD2 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how WP:LISTN is met, this is a WP:CATALOGUE like listing IMHO. Sure, it can be sourced to TV listings, but c'mon, this is non-encyclopedic trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian president (disambiguation)

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

I don’t believe that this is a valid disambiguation page because I don’t believe that anyone has ever referred to the Prime Minister of Ireland as the “Indian President”, and the other entries in this list are equally fanciful. It might be possible to rename this to “list of heads of state or government of Indian heritage but I’m not sure there’s much point in that. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and India. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to President of India. Literally no-one is going to search for anything else with this term. Dronebogus (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason to redirect Indian president (disambiguation) to President of India when Indian president already redirects there? Anyone typing the former, longer title is going to pass the latter, shorter one, and the target isn't a disambiguation page. TompaDompa (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this seems like a set index article in search of a topic. --Joy (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Delete agreed per previous points about the article title making no sense, should be a List of Heads of State of Indian Ancestry or just deleted outright. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the people on the list aren’t heads of state though. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge this article to List of foreign politicians of Indian origin.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d be happy with that, thank you. Mccapra (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But even after the merge, the resulting redirect wouldn't make much sense, what are the odds that an average reader looks up "Indian president" and expects to see that? This title is just weird and needs to go after any merge. --Joy (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a useful redirect. No useful content to merge. BruceThomson (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete after merging per Joy and Bruce. there is no point in keeping this as a redirect. We already have Indian President which redirects to "President of India". —usernamekiran (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On an Island Tour

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

Fails WP:NTOUR, has been the subject of a slow-motion edit war against its redirection Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to On an Island#Tour and WP:SALT, straight away. Edit war should be stopped, another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tour article, Onel5969 have quoted "not enough sources in this article to pass WP:VERIFY, and as per WP:BURDEN, do not re-add uncited material." Originally a redirect to an artist page, but not long now, the parent album page should be a suitable target once it is merged and redirected. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:BD8D:8A7D:DBFE:95E4 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per significant coverage in the following sources:
1. Povey, Glenn (2007). Echoes: The Complete History of Pink Floyd. Mind Head Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9554624-0-5.
  Contains a list of the tour dates, with commentary accompanying each date.
2. Cunningham, Mark (April 2006). "DAVID GILMOUR: On An Island 2006 tour". TPi Magazine. Retrieved 2023-01-27.
  Contains details of the tour's production, sound design, and stage management.
3. Houghton, Richard (2017-11-01). Pink Floyd: I Was There. This Day In Music Books. ISBN 978-1-78759-054-0.
  A personal account of attending one of the shows, with commentary placing the show in historical context. Excerpt: "In 2006, a buddy of mine and I flew to Los Angeles to see David Gilmour's On An Island tour at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, California. We specifically chose that venue because we felt that it was one of the best venues to see the show in the United States, being one of the smaller stops on the tour. Richard Wright was on the tour, sharing the stage with Gilmour. The show was incredible... Hearing Richard Wright and David Gilmour play live together, you could hear their friendship in the music and how their solos and flourishes played off each other. We did not know at the time that Richard Wright was ill. It was one of his last performances."
4. Reed, Ryan. "When David Gilmour Began Post-Pink Floyd Tour for 'On an Island'". Ultimate Classic Rock. Retrieved 2023-01-27.
  Excerpt: "Fittingly, the corresponding tour was a fascinating cross-section between the classic grandeur of Pink Floyd and Gilmour's newfound intimacy. A pair of London preview gigs, held on March 6 and 7, featured a blend of band staples ("Shine On You Crazy Diamond," "Comfortably Numb") and highlights from the new LP. But the true kickoff show – March 10 in Dortmund, Germany – found Gilmour settling into a comfortable flow of two separate sets: the full On an Island LP followed by a selection of wide-ranging Floyd tracks, including the Obscured by Clouds rarity "Wot's ... Uh, the Deal" and a cover of Syd Barrett's "Dominoes." ... The most memorable show, perhaps inevitably, was the last: The band played for more than 50,000 people at Poland's Gdańsk Shipyard, backed by the Polish Baltic Philharmonic. That concert, captured for the 2008 live album Live in Gdańsk, became the last Floyd-related recording to feature Wright, who died from lung cancer on Sept. 15 at age 65 – one week before the set's release."
These sources establish that this tour meets the requirements of WP:NTOUR, which state Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Jfire (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage provided by Jfire above. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ardit Gega

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC; can't find any coverage other than Soccerway, Transfermarkt, Sofascore etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried searching outside the one source provided but couldn't find anything to backup, for now a delete is appropriate.Epcc12345 (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As this is primarily due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attilio Meucci

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

The 2012 WSJ article cited appears to be the only coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The requirements of WP:BIO are therefore not satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject does appear to have a pretty substantial list of academic publications, although I'm not qualified to say whether that means he meets notability from that perspective.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's this paragraph talking about him in a textbook [1]. This article might have a chance, let me keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is his profile [2], over 800 citations since 2018, I think that passes ACADEMIC. Keep if that is him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When this came up on my radar, I had found the Google Scholar and, based on that and suspecting he might meet WP:NACADEMIC, didn't file an AfD. Odds are cites will need made to demonstrate NACADEMIC criterion 1, but that should be trivial to someone who knows how to do so. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think he may pass WP:PROF#C1 but the article is so badly sourced (not even having primary sources for basic career milestones, almost a BLPPROD) that I can't in good conscience argue for a keep in its current state. If someone takes enough interest to clean it up and properly source it, then it can be kept. Otherwise maybe it is a case for WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just passing through and wanted to link to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_194#Attilio_Meucci_and_ARPM and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jewzip due to concerns about likely considerable COI and SPA/sockpuppetry related to this article. Spencer^T•C 17:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Stockdale

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

None of the 3 references show significant coverage nor do they indicate notability in any other way. In my searches, the best I could find were Daily Telegraph, an image caption mention, Football SA, a squad list, TWG, which mentions her only once, and The Equalizer, which is a passing mention in a match report. I can't find any indication of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Happy to withdraw if someone can bring forth multiple WP:RS showing detailed coverage of Stockdale. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources are independent of the subject. A google search shows nothing more than trivial mentions. - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

WP:F1 Consensus is that these articles do not meet WP:LISTN. Only one of the drivers in question even ranks in the top ten of number of wins. Moreover these are content forks of their own articles. T v x1 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. T v x1 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there is zero indication that these even come close to satisfying WP:NLIST. The only relevant sources I found were either self-confessed stats sites (which Wikipedia isn't) and WP:SPS youtube video of Raikkonen's wins. SSSB (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Bwoah. I was only able to find similar things to SSSB. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per SSSB EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – To quote a truly wise editor (myself), "Needless fork of the results tables already provided in the main articles. Wikipedia is not a statistical database, and these are entirely redundant. They completely fail NLIST, which states that a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and there is no evidence on any of these articles that such coverage exists. Even a cursory check for each of these will show that virtually the only time they are considered as a set is by statistics databases." The exact same rationale applies here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Bioethics Society

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

The sources are directory listings that don't contain significant coverage of the organization or the journal it publishes. Searches of the usual types found no such coverage. As far as I can tell, the journal is indexed only in indiscriminate indexes, has no impact factor, and is seldom cited or quoted. Fails WP:NORG and WP:NJOURNALS. Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, Medicine, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Hollis Gause

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBIO - no evidence of significant awards, historical importance, or indeed any meaningful coverage in independent secondary sources related to his work. Of four sources in the article, one is his own author page at Barnes and Noble, one is his co-written book, and two are obituaries of him in fairly small publications. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Struck following User:Jahaza's find of a Festschrift below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't find reviews of his books, only obituaries and funeral home notices. Doesn't meet AUTHOR or GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep There's a festschrift published by Brill[3], which may satisfy WP:NACADEMIC, 1c. Jahaza (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it does. Brill is certainly not a vanity press, so WP:NACADEMIC applies. I've stricken through my original comment, though I'm not sure I really have the authority to roll back the whole process given that others have now commented. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACADEMIC 1 (c). Although the nominator has withdrawn a speedy close is not applicable as there is still one delete vote by @Oaktree b:, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree it passes now, as explained. Keep per ACADEMIC. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's Not What I Meant!

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK - no references to reviews in major publications, or evidence of any of the other criteria for notability. Appears to be written as self-promotion or otherwise as an advertisement. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2023 (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/2023 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has reviews up at both Publishers Weekly and Kirkus, which is very often considered enough to pass WP:NBOOK at AFD. Both are on the short side, though, so it would be nice if additional reviews could be located. Rorshacma (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Publishers' Weekly page includes a link to buy the book, so I don't think it can truly be counted as independent: it reads to me more like a blurb/advertisement than a review. Agreed re. the Kirkus review, though it is rather brief. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Publisher's Weekly isn't a RS. The Kirkus one, ok. ~~Weak delete~~ unless we can find another solid review. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This [4] but it's paywalled for me. Unsure how long the review is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an article discussing/applying its methods rather than a review per se; I'm not an expert here, but I think a case based on that would have to go through WP:NACADEMIC and assess the book's impact as academic/scholarly literature rather than popular. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC) (struck; see below) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is one good review, one iffy review and a scholarly journal applying its methods enough for GNG? I really don't know. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either, but I definitely wasn't right about WP:ACADEMIC - that applies to people, not books. I guess I'm at weak either way at the moment, but more reviews would certainly settle the matter. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as explained in my above comment is my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if those sources are going to form part of a justification for the article's existence, they should be added to it. A footnote of 'Reviews of the book' with straightforward links is sometimes useful here: see notes 18 and 19 in Emily Hauser, which came about through a similar process. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b just checking ... I think you need to strike your weak delete !vote. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oaktree b (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. Elgin, Suzette Haden (March 1987). "That's Not What I meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others". Language. 63 (1): 200. JSTOR 415426.
  The book review notes: "I disagree with this hypothesis; I believe it to be a valid description of communication only in persons who are extremely insecure and lacking in self-confidence. ... I suspect that this book is in some ways the product of strong pressures from agent, editor, and publisher, who did their best to convince T that a linguistics book for the general public should contain very little linguistics. I would enjoy seeing her write a book on this subject, or a related one, which did not suffer from the constraints those pressures impose on an author."
2. Craig, Paul (1986-02-27). "Conversation is all talk". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.
  The book review notes: "This book has come out of her observations, and she notes a number of barriers to bliss, such as some of us expressing things indirectly, a disaster when one is trying to reach somebody accustomed to bluntness. ... She also delves into what could be the most controversial aspect of the book, her assertion that there are male/female differences in communication. ... This is obviously oversimplification for the self-help book audience and Tannen knows it, although, in a communications lapse of her own, she buries her realization in a footnote at the back of the book ..."
3. Wolfe, Winnie (1992-07-12). "That's Not What I Meant!". The Pink Paper. p. 16. ProQuest 2081973842.
  The book review notes: "An international bestseller in the best tradition - a do it yourself guide to conversational style. If you have a problem in making yourself understood, or a desire for a classy turn of phrase then Deborah Tannen's little book is the guide you need. Although written to explain why we find it so difficult to talk to the "opposite sex" and discusses heterosexual misunderstandings, That's Not What I Meant will no doubt be of interest to many lesbians and gays who find talking to each other problematic."
4. Hall, Genae A. (April 1992). "Aspects of Conversational Style—Linguistic Versus Behavioral Analysis". The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. Vol. 10. doi:10.1007/BF03392876. Retrieved 2023-01-30.
  The paper notes: "This paper will focus on certain concepts presented in Deborah Tannen's book That's Not What I Meant, analyze them from a linguistic and a behavioral perspective, and compare the relative utility of the two approaches. In That's Not What I Meant, Tannen's basic premise is that people have different conversational styles and these different styles lead to misunderstandings and disrupted relationships. ... In her book, Tannen describes certain elements of conversational style and illus- trates how individual differences in these areas can lead to misunderstandings. One important element identified by linguists is known as "indirectness.""
5. "That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.
  The review notes: "Part pop psychology, part sociology and part anthropology, this book by a linguistics professor at Georgetown University focuses on the uncomfortable moments when a conversation inexplicably breaks down, and suggests how such awkwardness can be avoided."
6. "That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others". Kirkus Reviews. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.
  The review notes: "Tannen's strengths are in pinpointing the dilemma, but when it comes to giving advice, she falters. In fact, the problem with a book like this is that the reader, if he takes it seriously, will come away paralyzed into speechlessness; the random ""um"" or ""ah"" carries too much weight."
7. Bailey, Moira (1986-01-28). "That's not what I meant!". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., would tell us to blame cultural differences between the sexes. In "That's Not What I Meant!" (William Morrow and Co., $12.95), Tannen explores the multitudes of misunderstandings that people encounter in conversation. Tannen draws from her own experience and that of her students. She cites, for example, the breakdown in husband–wife communication that led to her divorce."
8. Morrison, Meris (1986-03-19). "Say what you mean!". Brattleboro Reformer. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Life is a matter of dealing with other people, and that means a series of conversations. "That's Not What I Meant" will assure that when conversations seem to be causing more problems than you're solving, you aren't losing your mind."
9. Stone, Elizabeth (January 1986). "Are You a Talk Hog, a Shouter, or A Mumbler? Decoding Conversational Styles—Deborah Tannen's "That's Not What I Meant"". Ms. Vol. 14, no. 7. p. 88. ProQuest 1877163761.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow That's Not What I Meant! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hypnotize (album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Rock 'n Roll

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kill Rock 'n Roll

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

This song had ONE source. Not a very notable song at the moment. I am going to attempt to fix this page, but if I can't find any good sources, it should be redirected to Hypnotize. BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2023 (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/2023 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
good bot BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - appears to be a failure of WP:NSONGS. Even the 1 source in the article isn't a reliable source, and the charting positions were pretty minor on 2 (almost identical) rock charts of the same country. Better shown as part of the respective article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above unless BoxxyBoy finds better sourcing. QuietHere (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hypnotize (album), per others. It took all my energy not to say Kill Article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hypnotize (album). See also X (System of a Down song). When an album is notable, it is not necessary for its songs to have their own articles unless a song has gained its own notoriety and independent notability away from the album. This song has some low chart placements and some fan trivia, but that is not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hypnotize (album), don't kill it. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. A WP:BEFORE shows very little independent coverage about the song. SBKSPP (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close, malformed and proceduraly unnecessary AfD. The move to draft has been reverted, any further objections to this article being in mainspace should be taken up in a new AfD opened by an editor actually arguing for them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Hello,[reply]

I wrote the article for SC Staaken. User:Onel5969 had notability issues with it and marked it as a draft. User:Onel5969 has had other issues with articles I have written including Harburger TB and Hamburg-Eimsbütteler Ballspiel-Club.

I am just marking it for deletion myself so we can make sure the deletion process isn't being deleted through - Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Incubation. I think it is just best to take it here so we Wikipedia:AGF.

I also want to add that situations like this are why I do not contribute to wikipedia as much as I could.

Sorry if I made any mistakes. I have never done this before.

KatoKungLee (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nymy Media

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

Article has deep COI (Isaacnymy, creator, appealed a draftify). Most sources are either primary or unreliable. WP:INHERITORG. Lead paragraph is also copied directly from website. Silikonz💬 17:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Uganda. Silikonz💬 17:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously non-notable. Mucube (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, their own website, wiki mirrors, social media and that's all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Sir, it's notable! Isaacnymy (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and seems more like WP:PROMO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP --Devoke water 15:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails NCORP HighKing 17:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musely

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

Tagged since August 2015 as an advert, and despite my own AFC acceptance (participants should note that acceptance criteria allow borderline drafts to be accepted) in May 2014, this has degraded into WP:ADMASQ. Searches reveal nothing significant about it. Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Internet. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It does seem to be the October 2022 edits by now-blocked Musely FaceRx that made the article unacceptably promotional; it could be worth reverting to the prior version or at least basing consideration of notability on that version? AllyD (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AllyD Your comment is sound, and yet, if we do that, we have an article that is still degraded, even from the AFC acceptance. It seems invidious to take it all the way back to what might be argued to be a reasonable version. Remember, it was a borderline acceptance then. Since all that has happened appears to me to have been negative improvement, I think the nomination should stand, perhaps factored by this comment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term appears to be a word in Hungarian(?), plenty of hits there. I don't find any peer-reviewed medical journals discussing it, nor any sort of discussion at all. This is promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a narrow consensus to keep at this time. BD2412 T 02:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marriages of Pompey the Great

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

The article was unilaterally pushed from draftspace (at Draft:Marriages of Pompey the Great) by User:Avilich recently, in relation to a deletion discussion (here). The sole author of the page, User:UndercoverClassicist has indicated that this move will be to the detriment of the development of the article (seen here), and requested my aid with nominating it to move it back to draft/userspace. Given the circumstances, I recommend it be user-fyed, rather than draftified, again. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, History, and Politics. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the creator wants to work on it in userspace, s/he can duplicate it there. I see no need to remove it from public view. Srnec (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: That would disrupt the article history, and necessitate a copy-paste. The article is only roughly half-complete at the moment, so this is no small amount. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in main and move to userspace per nominator's rationale. jengod (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to userspace per jengod and User:Iazyges (whom I asked to create this request) above. I'm very happy for anyone who wants to continue helping with it to do so, but it's really not ready for mainspace at the moment and it is, frankly, a little embarrassing to have what is effectively my own half-finished work out there in the public sphere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe draft space would be for the best.★Trekker (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This perhaps shouldn't have come to main space the way it did, but I see no reason why the article can't be improved in main space now that it is there (that's what WP is about, after all...). Furius (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am sympathetic to the fact that the creator did not want to publish the article, but I can see no real legitimate reason to re-draftify or userfy the article. WP:Drafts specifically says that An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. The article is not in such a bad state as to need draftification on its own merit, and there's nothing to stop people improving it in mainspace. That said, I don't care so much as to strongly object to userfying as a courtesy. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic; not a big deal that it is a little prematurely in main. However, Avilich should be reminded not to mess about with drafts other users are actively working on, as there is no time limit. Curbon7 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reuser-fy~~ move to keep on 29 January 2023 as UndercoverClassicists work on this article is just too good to be deleted. But ~~since the draft was released into article mainspace without the consent of the draft creator.~~ Drafts should be given the time to develop since some editors might want to create/nominate an article they feel comfortable with either to DYK or GA. At least the draft creator could have been consulted before their draft was released into article main space.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep each article on his wives. I don't think there is a need for this synth article, which subject can be covered in both Pompey and articles about his wives. In addition, I think there is enough ground to create an article about Aemilia (wife of Pompey)—right now the only wife without an article. T8612 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Furius and Caecilius point out, nothing prevents this from being improved in article space, and frankly it's not that bad considering that this arose out of having one of the individual articles—likely the most substantial—nominated for deletion. Creating a page like this was the best alternative to deletion; deleting it, whether by turning it into a draft or something else, potentially eliminates the contents from the encyclopedia if the other article is deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But if the other articles are kept, there is no need to keep this one? T8612 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the wives were adequately covered elsewhere, then there would be no need to duplicate the material here, but given the number of them and how little is known about them—other than who they were related to—it still seems like a good idea to consolidate them into one article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as I said in the ANI, I like "Wives of ____" articles but they should not be used at the expense of individual articles about women, doing that sets a dangerous precedent about the coverage of women on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it sets any precedent regarding the coverage of women—it's simply better to keep related material together when it's pretty skimpy and liable to be nominated for deletion, even if the ultimate result of the discussion is, as it has been in this instance, "keep". This is especially the case when so little is known about someone that most of the discussion concerns the other people to whom the subject was related, since that is a constant theme of deletion discussions (the lack of "inherited notability"). And even if the article on Antistia can be beefed up to avoid future deletion nominations, the fact that there are other wives about whom even less can be said—or at least has been written in other articles—is a strong argument to keep this one. P Aculeius (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, before the Antistia article was expanded upon due to the AFD one could make the same claim about her as about Pompey's other wives, truth is that when it comes to ancient women there is often a lot of scholarly coverage which is burried and hard to find, I feel fairly certain that Aemilia could have a good article as well, but if we decide that its ok to have "Wives of __" articles instead of an individual article that does set a dangerous predecent in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the discussion on Antistia (wife of Pompey) has closed with Keep, this article needs even more work, since the Antistia section (currently almost identical with some of that article's sections) needs to be reworked as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE distillation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaram Kailas

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

It appears that the only notable film directed by the subject is Akkaldhamayile Pennu. This is not enough to establish notability according to Wikipedia's general notability guideline. To satisfy WP:FILMMAKER, the subject's works must have received any major awards. The only useful source that has been found is an interview regarding the film. There is no in-depth coverage outside of this source other than some brief mentions. Akevsharma (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Akevsharma (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable director of non-notable film, Primary and not working sources, doesn't establish notability in reliable sources other than timesnownew and ManoramaOnline. Can't find anything about his award. Fails WP:DIRECTOR M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japan at the 2009 Asian Youth Games

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

Japan at the 2009 Asian Youth Games

This article does not satisfy general notability. Neither of the references is a secondary source, or is significant coverage. A copy of this article was in article space, but was moved to draft space by User:Onel5969, at which point the originator created a new copy in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Japan. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this passes WP:GNG. Which isn't surprising, since it's a list of mostly non-notable people competing in a youth event, both of which are reasons why this doesn't look to get much coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Alagón Cano

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

Fails WP:NPROF. References are completely unrelated to the topic. Could be a hoax, but I can't be arsed to investigate further. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I will say that initially when looking at this article I was teetering around a delete opinion, however upon further research I would disagree. Firstly, I would like to say I completely understand the article is in a horrible state, however it is certainly not irreparable. I have numerous reasons to support this point. Firstly, there is a generally healthy article about this exact same individual on the Spanish Wikipedia, as seen Here. This article is highly beneficial to us as it provides numerous sources, although most if not all are in Spanish. Per this, firstly I believe asserting it could be a hoax is just not true. I personally checked the FDA filing for Anascorp available Here which confirms Alejandro Alagón Cano was an active participant in development. As per "Failing Wikipedia:NPROF" I would argue this is not the case. --- As per the criteria "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Obviously this is not accurate in the current state of the article, however this can be fixed with further research and hopefully translation from some Spanish Wikipedia friends! In fact, I would argue that further articles could be written extending from Alejandro Alagón Cano. Did you know that when Anascorp was approved by the FDA for use in the United States in 2011, it was the first ever Latin American drug to reach agency approval. I would argue that is rather notable in itself. Additionally, Anascorp is mentioned in numerous reliable sources regarding various topics, including cost of medication in the United States and the lengthy process of approval it underwent. According to a Stanford University source, (available here,) the researches who sought to investigate Anascorp's effectiveness tested over 200 children by 2010 in which had become (at that time) the largest ever anti-venom clinical trial in the world! Following my research I am going to investigate further into writing up an article for [[Anascorp]] and as a member of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, I will personally commit myself to making an attempt to repair the state of Alejandro Alagón Cano. Thank you for your time reading this and I hope you have a good day. ✯✬✩InterestGather (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those things can be used to demonstrate NPROF notability. The direct impact of the researcher must be discussed in independent, secondary coverage; having a drug approved by the FDA or the drug being tested in a trial are completely irrelevant if they aren't accompanied by significant commentary that describes the subject's involvement in those things. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences [5]. Their standards are not anywhere as selective as, say, the US National Academy of Sciences, but that's a high bar and I think their numbers of members are similar. Anyway, a major national academy should be good enough for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject easily met WP:NPROF#3 as a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. Shoerack (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcc12345 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srđan Mulćan

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Vukovljak

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find nothing better than this passing mention in this exhaustive squad listing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 20:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Berman

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

Doesn't seem to be notable on his own without the toy company. I went in and removed as much promo as possible, but what's left doesn't have a claim to notability on its own. The "Entrepreneur Award" may sound impressive, but looking at the wiki article for the award shows that only one World Entrepreneur award is granted per year and it didn't go to the subject. In 2001, E&Y granted over 230 (I counted by hand so more or less) lesser "Entrepreneur Awards" of different kinds, including to the subject. I don't think that passes the "significant award" requirement for WP:ANYBIO.

(Toy company itself has an article where all of the refs are PR release statements, with one obit that might be legit. Haven't researched that one so idk if that one qualifies for AfD). Blue Edits (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a doctor with this name and something in IMDB. Nothing for this person. What we have here for sourcing isn't much beyond PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Nikolić

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODed by SPA who added a few sources, none of which is both independent and in-depth. A link to GScholar shows a smattering of citations, but nothing out of the ordinary. The journal was established recently (2020) so at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The DOAJ is a selective database. Web of Science indexing is only possible after min. two years of publishing, thus can be expected in June / July with the next publication of newly introduced journals.

CDATP is one of the very few (only 2) diamond open access journals in the textile area and thus one of only two journals enabling free reading and free publication of their own results for researchers from low-income countries. Working myself in the textile area, I know that this is highly important for many colleagues.

Pixiworld (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DOAJ is only selective in the sense that they (try to) exclude predatory journals. Apart from that, it strives to include all OA journals. WoS indexing does not necessarily take 2 years. I know of journals that were included after 9 months. Whether or not this journal will be included remains to be seen, unfortunately my crystal ball is currently out of order. I appreciate your comment about the importance of this journal for your field, but unfortunately the opinions of WP editors are irrelevant for determining notability. What is needed are reliable sources that are independent of the journal and are more than just passing mentions. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is from my point of view biased, probably based on experience in science with larger scientific communities.

Comment 1. "DOAJ it strives to include all OA journals" is not true. Any in-deep and independent source for this statement is missing. The DOAJ Procedure is clearly defined and not simple https://doaj.org/apply/guide/

Comment 2. "WoS evaluation process duraction" - it can take up to 9 months, but one journal has to provide stable production at least with 3 issues, and this means, it has to exists at least 2 years before application. Check source https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/web-of-science/core-collection/editorial-selection-process/editorial-selection-process/

Comment 3. "To nothing out of the ordinary". From the point of view of bibliometrics, the subject of this journal is a narrow area, in some countries, these are named "small/narrow" subjects. It is not correct to compare publication activity and citation rates of journals from "narrow areas" with areas with larger scientific community (linguistics, informatics, chemistry). Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.20936

It might be interesting for you to make a training in evaluation of scientific production by Scival.com for instance.

But the "out of ordinarity" of this journal is that, contrary to the 95% of the other diamond open access journals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access) it is NOT comming from Latin-America, it is based in high salary country (Germany) and supports resarchers over the world with the compelete voluntary work of editors, reviewers and production team; providing peer-review quality. If this is not notable or recognizable by Wikipedia, then there is no worth to use Wikipedia at all. Hense Keep PikoBelo (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALS, and DOAJ is certainly not selective in the sense of WP:NJOURNALS#C1 (see note 1b in particular). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~:

The journal is listed in an assestment of CODRIA Project about quality journals under Diamond Open Access, independent source added https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2965484

Removed Google, reference of the journal itself, and sentence without reference

Added 3 conferences, one of these traditional, main event in the area (14-th joint int. conference Clotech), which publish selected papers of the contributors in the journal if they pass the peer review process.

Using only Scopus and Web of Science as critera leads to biased results for several "non standard" subjects DOI:10.3897/ese.2020.e51987. PikoBelo (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but none of this contributes to notability under NJournals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, simply being listed in a list of open access journals it not significant coverage. This simply says the journal exists and is in some databases, like DOAJ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, but I do not see any sense to discuss this topic more at the current time.

Proposal: move to "Draft" until the WoS or Scopus result gets published. Then the "easy criteria" will be satisfied. PikoBelo (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German International School Riyadh

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No significant coverage searching under its English and German names. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to this, draftify is a good option. I sent an e-mail to a contact at the Arab News (English language newspaper in Saudi Arabia) and I hope they get in contact soon so I can source articles about international schools in Saudi Arabia. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not every school gets to have a Wikipedia page, and those that do are generally more interesting than this.

Nwhyte (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment : Honestly I don't know how "interesting" or "boring" this school is because I haven't read the respective Arab News articles yet (I need to get access to them) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am still trying to contact the Arab News to get article archives. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending better sources and content. BD2412 T 02:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German International School Jeddah

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No significant coverage under its English or German name. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to this, draftify is a good option. I sent an e-mail to a contact at the Arab News (English language newspaper in Saudi Arabia) and I hope they get in contact soon so I can source articles about international schools in Saudi Arabia. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not every school gets to have a Wikipedia page, and those that do are generally more interesting than this. Nwhyte (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment : Honestly I don't know how "interesting" or "boring" this school is because I haven't read the respective Arab News articles yet (I need to get access to them) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am still trying to contact the Arab News to get article archives. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending better sources and content. BD2412 T 02:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Misterrrrr (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Adani

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't check the deleted version but the subject is Not Notable. Being a relative of a famous or being from a rich family does not makes anyone Notable. His News are covered with name of his Brother. Misterrrrr (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Misterrrrr (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Misterrrrr (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's the ~~third~~sixth richest man in India, and the richest non-resident Indian, and has received coverage from multiple reliable sources reflecting that fact. Regarding his brother: Vinod appears to have his own personal fortune in his own right, separate from his involvement in his brother's businesses. — The Anome (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As i can check List of Indians by net worth, i didn't got his name. The first Richest Indian is Vinod Adani's brother Gautam Adani and third Richest Indian is Shiv Nadar. Please provide reliable source about your claim. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Misterrrrr (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2023 (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/2023 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my mistake. He's listed as the sixth richest Indian by multiple sources, eg [6]. I've corrected my comment above. — The Anome (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be discussed. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Arab Emirates and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while being the relative of someone notable does not convey notability, being the main subject of multiple news stories in the mainstream media certainly does: please see WP:GNG. — The Anome (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources given are good, I also find this write-up in Time [7]. Perhaps not flattering coverage, but we're at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Oaktree b. I think you should have a second look at the TIME's source you attached. It is regarding Gautam Adani. Not Vinod. Thesixserra (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned in passing, yes. I still think we have enough for a keep, maybe not a strong case though. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Oaktree b's arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QRep2020 (talk • contribs)
keep there is no media frenzy, but the subject has received enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage over the years to establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Train station. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate station

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

Unnecessary WP:NOTDICDEF. Perhaps quite telling that the links to other types of stations (through station, branch-off station) also don't link to articles about that type of station, but to vaguely related articles which don't really explain these terms anyway. Anyway, not really a necessary or enlightening article, basically (also according to the source used in the artice[8]) intermediate stations are all stations between end stations. Well, yeah, that's quite obvious. Fram (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Transportation. Fram (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article feels like a written version of Just a Minute: see how long you can write, without repetition, deviation or hesitation, on what is ultimately a plain and simple dictionary definition. Elemimele (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a dictionary definition - you won't find it in a standard dictionary - but it is a very common railway term and a very common railway facility. In fact, the majority of stations are intermediate ones and that means they are different in significant ways from others such as termini, transfer stations and junctions. The fact that English Wikipedia is underdeveloped in this area of railway business, which is why some of the links don't yet have their own articles or article sections, is not a good reason for deletion; otherwise the subject area will never get covered. This article needs to grow and the links need to be developed; that's how Wikipedia gets improved. I'm willing to work on that with the cooperation of other interested editors. And taking the mick as per Elimimele is hardly a good encyclopaedic argument and fails the dictionary test as well. Bermicourt (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of our deficiencies in this area, as I'm the one who made Passenger train, Freight train, and Maintenance of way into standalone articles, created a number of articles that were missing for railroad maintenance of way equipment, and am responsible for the only such article to reach GA status (Train). I'm not saying this to brag, but to show that I am familiar with the topic area and feel confident in saying this doesn't need its own article, and instead should be incorporated into our existing train station article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this was seen as taking the mick. But it is a dictionary definition. It just says, in an incredibly long-winded way, that an intermediate station is a station that's intermediate between other stations. It's possible to write a useful history of such concepts as a passenger train, while maintenance of way is a subject that cries out for an encyclopaedia article, but it's impossible to write anything about intermediate stations that isn't just general stuff about stations. Intermediate stations are an inevitable feature of a rail system, and no more interesting as intermediates than a bus stop half way along a route. Articles that rely on extremely pedantic mini-distinctions between near-identical items don't improve the encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, one source that could be used to expand this to a decent sized article has an entire chapter on the "Organization of Intermediate Station Operations" which covers their definition, responsibilities, passenger and freight operations, safety operations, train-receiving and dispatching and car-marshalling, operational plannning, equipment management and and personnel. So we're being a bit hasty condemning this as nothing more than an "dictionary definition" when is in fact a broad topic that easily merits an article. Bermicourt (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this Communist China manual? Fram (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the text is the same as the British source it drew on. Try googling "intermediate station" and "train" and you'll get a gazillion hits, many related to the features of an intermediate station and how it's used. Here's another source that describes, among other things, the main operations at intermediate stations. And here are some university course notes that make frequent mention of intermediate stations and give a typical layout, so it's reached academia. In this source the modelling of intermediate stations is presented to the European Conference on CIS. It's pretty clear that there is a vast amount of material on the topic that could be used to expand the article. Bermicourt (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if you're an academic or engineer you should know the principles of station design, but stuff like how to calculate track lengths, design of basic platforms and intermediate platforms for passengers in a station, that a passageway connecting them should be "no less than 2.5 m" wide, design of ordinary platforms and high platforms for freight, tables of parameters, etc. are too intricate for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). What I'm reading in this chapter can still be covered in some ways at Train station, Railway platform, Freight yard, Catch siding, etc. There are also chapter sections on how to design high-speed stations, district stations, etc. that don't need separate articles either. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Seems like a few sentences could be merged to Train station or maybe Railway stop, but this is a pretty basic definition that wouldn't inform anyone who's been on a train before of anything new. I don't think there's a word in the manual linked by Fram that's actually specific to intermediate stations – dealing with lines, passengers, and freight applies to other stations too, and everything in here likewise seems kind of obvious that you should have safety procedures, communication equipment, shift plans, etc., all generic stuff perhaps for Rail transport operations. Reywas92^Talk 15:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Train station. I note that the term "intermediate station" is not present at either train station or Glossary of rail transport terms. There is no need for a standalone article when this can easily be defined in the train station article. Essentially anything you could say about intermediate stations would be redundant with the train station article, as the vast majority of train stations are intermediate stations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Train station. Intermediate station is a preliminary and unjustified WP:SPINOFF. It belongs under Train station, under the same category as Terminus, though with a significantly lesser propensity to justify a WP:SPINOFF one day. When fitting Intermediate station in, please make note of the partial overlap of Intermediate station with Railway stop, belonging to another category. gidonb (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into train station. I'm sympathetic to the existence of this article but it can't stand on its own; an additional complication is that the German language has specific terms for concepts that are recognized in English but don't have specific analogues. Keilbahnhof is a good example of this, and one where an article is justified. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Fina

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

~~WP:PROMOTIONAL article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article sounds a bit promotional, so it requires a re-write, but I dont think it should be deleted on that basis alone. The subject is notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS --RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - I agree that this article needs a rewrite and trim, but the actual subject looks independently notable. 193.37.240.168 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a three-page profile with additional sources in International directory of company histories. Vol. 52. St. James Press. 2003. ISBN 978-1-55862-693-5., meeting the requirements of WP:CORP. Jfire (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Griffiths

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

New user tried to delete content written by the subject herself but was reverted by another editor, thus tagged article for notability. The article has 18 sources and I've checked those. Two dead links (travelcommunicators.co.nz and www.magic.co.nz, none of which I would expect to have been in-depth reliable sources), one source made a single mention of the subject, and the remaining fifteen was content written by the subject. Hence, the sources present do not establish notability whatsoever, far from it. I've had a poke around whether there is anything out there about her and the only thing I could find is a recent promotional article by a real estate agent trying to sell her house. Everything else was written by the subject herself. Given that she's a prolific journalist, it might well be that my BEFORE failed because searches get swamped by those other results. But the way it stands, this needs to go unless stuff turns up that demonstrates GNG. Schwede 66 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, Television, and New Zealand. Schwede 66 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Radio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:SELFPROMOTE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on my review of the article and subsequent research, I do not believe that she is noteworthy enough (at this time) to merit an article. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO as well. Almeida Fernando (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus among editors in this discussion is to Keep this article. But that situation might change depending on whether or not there are copyright violations found in this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Zurich

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. Joeykai (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. I've cleaned it up considerably. Alvaldi (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expanded by Alvaldi, the article provides ample in-depth reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that the notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I put great effort into creating accurate and complete information. Thank you Alvaldi for the cleanup, I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor. Jrnhoops (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid sources, meets WP:GNG. JojoMN1987 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to the extremely excessive detail, this page has some serious copyvio (a bunch of the prose outside the quotes is unattributed copy-paste from the sources) and probably should be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Raj

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria or the notability criteria for a director. The individual is only known for directing some short films and music videos and is only mentioned in a few sources. Additionally, an unsubmitted draft for the same article created by the same already exists. Akevsharma (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meets WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER --- Misterrrrr (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mary, Turkmenistan#Culture. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Library

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

Fails WP:GNG. A couple of articles in state media during the inauguration. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mary,_Turkmenistan#Culture where it merits a mention. Star Mississippi 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apologies to the article creator, who has brought a very extensive argument for why this article should be Kept, but it hasn't been persuasive to the editors who have participated in this discussion who, almost unanimously, believe that this article is a duplication and should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammals of North America north of Mexico

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

We have List of mammals of Canada, List of mammals of the United States, and List of mammals of North America. I don't think this division / grouping adds anything useful. Fram (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Canada, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to say but I am not a fan of the "North America north of Mexico" name. I would prefer it was either called it ...mammals of Northern America or call it mammals of the United States and Canada. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is recreating the original concept of the site "List of mammals of North America" listing species only north of Mexico. In the past, mammals of North America were divided into 2 very useful lists:

List of mammals of North America (north of Mexico / USA Canada)
List of mammals of Mexico

But some time ago someone spoiled first of these pages page by extending its geographical scope to south. That decision did not add anything useful, because pages listing mammals of Mexico and other southern areas already existed separately. Moreover number of species of the entire North America is enormously large, especially in tropics. Lumping so diverse species into one sack is not good idea. And this is the real reason of reduction of its scope to north.

North America is an artificial entity. It covers areas from Arctic to tropics, very different. Most of guides of mammals and other animals or plants treat North America north of Mexico as a whole. For example:

Kays, Roland W.; Wilson, Don E.. Mammals of North America
Burt, William Henry et al. A Field Guide to the Mammals. North America north of Mexico. Peterson Field Guides
National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America
Chandler S. Robins et al, A guide to field identification, Birds of North America
The Sibley Guide to Birds

All these books are about USA Canada. And webpages, articles (see google)

Moreover borders between USA and Canada and Greenland are easier to pass then border between USA and Mexico.

List of mammals of North America (as a whole) is almost useless from a practical point of view. Far too many irrelevant species. And vice versa, numbers of species of separated USA and Canada are too low, they don't cover an entire area of interest. Darekk2 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here are examples of actually quite similar pages:

Darekk2 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your intent, but unfortunately this is rather misguided. From a biogeographical point of view, there is no valid reason to separate Mexico and Central America from wider North America.

a) Central America is a valid subdivision as it is part of the Neotropical realm, but is still a key portion of the North American continent.

b) The Nearctic realm bisects deep into Mexico, forming an indivisible, integral extension of the biogeographical region which covers most of the US and Canada. This explicitly extends to biota as well (birds, bears, felids, ungulates etc.). A political border such as that of Mexico and the US being does not stop the exact same environments and animals being native far beyond either side, never mind that they can still migrate across it.

Why do many English speakers feel differently? There's a key cultural connection between both countries, and also an Anglo-centric desire to separate English-speaking America from Latin America. A simple reason why these books only cover the US and Canada is because they're published in English and therefore interested in English speaking markets, and those countries are the best known members of the Nearctic realm in their respective countries. Additionally, if they decide to cover Mexico to include another huge swathe of the Neactic realm, they are also forced to include tropical North American species, which are just as inherently North American as anything you'll find in New Jersey. That does not change the fact that the continent of North America inherently includes Central America and the Caribbean, and Nearctic North America will always include Mexico.

Also, I don't think these articles fit your argument.

List of birds of Southern Africa- Southern Africa is a well known biogeographical region, demarked by geographic boundaries. The US and Canada are 2/3 of a contiguous biogeographical region.
List of birds of South Asia- South Asia is a valid subcontinent and biogeographical region.
List of birds of Western Australia- Western Australia is a political entity, not a biogeographical region.
List of birds of Western Sahara- see above.
List of mammals of Central America - neotropical North America, a valid biogeographical region. However, Central America is a subdivision of North America.
List of mammals of South Africa - political entity etc.
List of mammals of South Australia- see above.
List of mammals of Western Australia- see above.
List of amphibians of South Australia- see above.
List of amphibians of Western Australia- see above.
List of reptiles of Western Australia- see above.

Possible solution- if you're interested in keeping an antiquated view on North America alive despite the evidence, just combine the US and Canadian lists together. Ultimately, the key cause of most of this confusion is that eastern Mexico includes the confluence of both the Neotropical and Neartic realms, which makes separating them difficult. People don't seem to have a problem squishing all the biota of other continents together though, nor would this new list also not encounter issues with, as @Fram so dexterously put it, "(m)ixing the Arctic with Death Valley and the Everglades...". Same goes for the recently moved List of reptiles of North America north of Mexico and List of amphibians of North America north of Mexico articles. SuperTah (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of mammal species living in an entire North America is very approximately twice larger than north of Mexico. The same is with other animals. That makes things much more complicated. Those areas you refer to are political or other entities, but they are parts of continents. Southern Asia and Southern Africa are not so bad examples. However South and Western Australia are states of Australia, very well defined really. Darekk2 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's perhaps where we get to the heart of the matter- by saying "entire North America", do you mean the US and Canada, or the entire continent of North America? Also, I am also wondering whether you are talking about northern Mexico as per Wikipedia's definition, as the same biogeographic region which includes the US, Canada and northern Mexico continues into central Mexico & the Valley of Mexico, up to the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt. Out of curiosity, what complications do you see? As a side note, you'd expect that two countries' worth of species would outnumber that of a region of a single country, right?
Which brings us back to the articles- the US and Canada are not a singular political entity, which separates that potential listicle from the states and country faunal lists above. Southern Asia and Southern Africa are great examples of biogeographic regions, but as mentioned, the US and Canada are also not a singular biogeographic region- both are constituent pieces of the Nearctic biogeographic realm, which again, Mexico is inherently a significant part of. SuperTah (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is good question what is "North America" or for example "Europe". These terms obviously are defined more or less accurate, but saying "entire North America" I mean such school definition - appropriate geological plate - the geological North American plate in this case, without eastern Siberia, perhaps Caribbean Plate eastern part of Pacific Plate (Hawaii). Azores are on the verge of Europe and North America, I would treat them as Europe. Iceland is partially in North America, but this is European country. Greenland is politically in Europe, but geologically North America. Moreover it is similar to northern Canada and Alaska. But that all is off topic. North America north of Mexico is the same (whatever it is), but north of Mexico.

Regarding "complicated" - it is difficult to deal with such large number of species, in case of book to draw them all, add descriptions. And most of all, important species are hidden in such crowd of irrelevant species from tropics. Darekk2 (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning based on geologic plates is valid (iffy on Hawaii), but the reason why I asked was to better understand the 'approximate number of species in North America vs northern Mexico' comment. I'd like to address two comments here~

a) Yes "north of Mexico" is definitive, but as per the Nearctic realm, it's like creating a list of mammals of the Brazilian Amazon instead a list for the whole Amazon, or a list for mammals from the Alps without France or Switzerland. From a geographic and biota point of view, the US and Canada are incomplete without Mexico.

b) There are a large number of species, so I understand the apprehension. However, I found "important species are hidden in such crowd of irrelevant species from tropics" quite telling. Tropical North America is more valid to the millions of people living there than temperate North America. If we're acknowledging the diversity of geologic plates, then there shouldn't be any dispute about which species are more North American than others, nor should we have lists dividing biogeographic zones based on convenience or cultural/political history.

I've looked into the precedents for continent faunal lists, and we have a bit of a mixed bag. There are lists for mammals of South America and Australia, which are completely dominated the Neotropical and Australasian realms respectively. Oceania (one realm) and Africa (1100 species, two realms) are served by categories, whereas Eurasia (three realms) has a mix of lists and categories. Personally, I think we should own the diversity of the continent, and not do unnecessary duplication. One potential solution is partitioning the Nearctic and Neotropical fauna within the article itself. Some mammals like coyotes, raccoons, jaguars and pumas are examples of fauna which overlap both biogeographic realms- this is likely to expand due to the Florida Everglades being part of the Neotropical realm. This should be expected, as it is a single continent after all. However, I see this as the most parsimonious solution to what is a somewhat long list- a list with four sections a) pan continental b) Nearctic c) Neotropical d) Extinct (which is probably unnecessary frankly, seeing as Quaternary Extinction Event exists). SuperTah (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant from the point of view of people living in America north of Mexico or visiting that area. They want to know what is living there but not somewhere thousands kilometers or miles away. Such large list looks like useless chaos for them. Darekk2 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, wouldn't that be the purpose of the US and Canada mammal lists? The southern boundaries of Nearctic Mexico is as close to Denver as San Francisco, and is just as biologically related at that. I do think that reorganizing this list is in the original articles' best interest, and I'm willing to help you do that- I'll take the sections (revised to a) Transitional b) Nearctic c) Neotropical d) Introduced) to discuss over to that talk page.

Regarding this article, biogeographically it doesn't work. This is a de-facto US/Canada mammal list, so those lists will have to be merged into this one to make this work and avoid the duplication of content. SuperTah (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: the List of birds of North America article is pan-continental, and provides a good precedent on how a many species from a diverse range of fauna can be formatted nicely in the same article. SuperTah (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A content fork is not the solution to such situations. An RfC on the talk page of List of mammals of North America to decide on the scope of that page is the way to go, not creating more pages. Fram (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless as a list. We already have lists for Canada and the USA, which is all there is north of Mexico (other than St. Pierre and Miquelon) in North America. I could understand keeping this if it was a large area with hundreds of countries, but it's not. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hundreds of countries by the way, but less then 200, (195, including dependencies: List of countries and dependencies by area)

Darekk2 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't follow the reasoning. List of mammals of the United States and List of mammals of Canada cover this geographic region. If that has in the past been "adulterated" by including extraneous entries, those should be removed; sticking another list on top that covers both in their intended extent does not seem like a suitable solution. We do strive for parsimony in coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone spoiled also List of mammals of the United States replacing all latin names by abbreviations.

Darekk2 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not ideal IMO, but also fixable if desired, and anyway not a big issue given that each species is linked to its article under its common name. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally spoiled webpage. The list was destroyed by someone who knows nothing about anything.

Darekk2 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrived arbitrary region not generally recognised for this purpose. It is not a political region like US, Canada, or California, nor a geographical region like North America, Greenland, or the Great Lakes, nor a recognised ecological region, nor a demarcated protected area. About as logical as "Mammals of the world excepting Mexico" · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying. It is generally recognized in book guides, journal articles and webpages (see information above). And few more examples with North America north of Mexico

SSAR North American Species Names Database - list of reptiles and amphibians
ABA Checklist - list of birds
Robert J. Baker et al, "Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003"

And not except but north of Mexico (you are lying again). Mixing Arctic with Caribbean is not natural, nonsense. I don't understand, why one more, very practical list, bothers so much.

Darekk2 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing the Arctic with Death Valley and the Everglades is not "natural" either, these are man-made divisions and groupings, not natural ones. Fram (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few more examples (About 371,000 results in Google)

Maps:

Other examples:

Darekk2 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darekk2 Please take care when making edits. Your addition of the above included you deleting my below comment. Which I've restored. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as others have pointed out this duplicates other articles and as such could be speedy deleted as a Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. In addition the article is incorrectly named. Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Bermuda and the worlds largest island, Greenland all lie north of Mexico and are part of North America but don't seem to be included. Also the article could have been created by using ~~{{extract}}~~ (edited: That should have been {{Excerpt}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 02:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly true. It includes Greenland etc and does not duplicate existing topic as a whole, because it covers only part of North America. Moreover it restores the original scope of the article List of mammals of North America, which was only about North America north of Mexico once. Actually, List of mammals of North America should be reverted and renamed to List of mammals of North America north of Mexico, and List of mammals of North America created as a new article.

I don't know how this artice (List of mammals of North America north of Mexico) could be created using {{extract}}. This template looks like having something with dates. This article was created manually, by manual deleting all species not occuring north of Mexico and some of references, also adding few species and references. It took me half a day or longer (many hundreds species to review).

And by the way - someone added a lot species to the List of mammals of North America without any references, probably copying simply parts of List of mammals of Mexico and other articles about North American mammals. I think that such species should be speedy deleted. Moreover someone deleted some referenced species taken from MDD, I added some time ago. I don't uderstand that. I restored at least some of them yesterday.

And very sorry for deleting your comment. I did this somehow by mistake during edition and don't know how this could happen. That is very strange. Probably somehow during editing code and moving my own large comment using cut and paste options and repairing format. Darekk2 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I posted the wrong template. I meant {{Excerpt}}. I used it at List of Indian reserves in Canada. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case it is impossible, because species are mixed, not ordered in blocks. Darekk2 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject and the article is well written and well researched. Serratra (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per SuperTah's reasoning in particular, and because this is in fact a duplication/content fork of existing articles. --bonadea contributions talk 21:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My Google Books search indicates that the topic meets WP:NLIST. North America north of Mexico is Northern America and thus also rename! gidonb (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up myself, and not only is "Northern America" weakly sourced, it often includes Mexico in its coverage. Renaming to Northern America won't solve the issues pertaining to biogeography and duplication. SuperTah (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SuperTah, "pertaining to biogeography and duplication": definitely! Animals do not stop at borders! So this problem exists. It's a good comment for the intro and not clearly there. Thank you for pointing this out and for your other contributions to this discussion! Pertaining to the sourcing, "North America, north of Mexico" was included in my search. Together, the body of books is strong. gidonb (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the harshness of my original comment. I should have been more nuanced, and acknowledged that there is indeed a precedent of books covering this scope! SuperTah (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a logical reaction! I pointed out that "North America, north of Mexico" is an incorrect term for the title. As an inferior synonym, I included it in my sourcing anyway. Thank you for allowing me to clarify! gidonb (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greenland-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could people stop obsessing about whether the specific list title, or combination of geographic areas, is used in other places? The point is that we already have articles covering this material, this is a content fork, and we don't need that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no- the content fork issue is fairly straightforward enough. However, the discussion turned essentially whether this de-facto US/Canada mammal list was WP:NOTE (i.e. if the grouping is valid both in literature and reasoning). Getting into the details of why that may or may not be was not only one of the arguments from the article creator, it's also helpful is deciding both whether this article should exist, and how to solve the original article's issues. Seems like the issue is settled anyway. SuperTah (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list looks very much the same as the original article at List of mammals of North America, only difference here is that the title is called List of mammals of North America north of Mexico. We don’t need another article that looks like a duplicate of the article that I said before. --Vaco98 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not duplicate at all, but smaller area and much smaller number of species. A list similar to the List of mammals of North America in in years 2007-2020. Actually everything in that list from 2020 above is duplicate.Darekk2 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - We usually maintain these lists at three different resolutions (at least): country, subcontinent, and continent. These are recognized and recognizable geographies. In cases like this, lists (and articles - very common just as well!) can absolutely have some repetition. A huge advantage of this system is that we can provide different levels of detail depending on the position in the geographical ladder. gidonb (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is level intermediate between country and continent. Something like a subcontinent. Darekk2 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not just "something like a subcontinent." This article is PRECISELY on the subcontinent of Northern America. The article is great. The name is VERY bad. It's a factor in the instability of the article. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly the existence of this article is not motivated by geography or biology, but simply by the perennial refusal to accept that Mexico is part of North America. It merely duplicates content already covered elsewhere, without being more useful or convenient. Tercer (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You are lying. All field guides and thousands of sources are about North America north of Mexico. Darekk2 (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tercer, all countries and territories from Panama, Aruba, Curacoa, Bonaire, and Trinidad & Tobago in the south to the northern edges of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska are in NORTH AMERICA. In other words, Mexico is centrally located in North America! Still, I see Mexicans sometimes express doubt about whether they are North Americans or not. It's a bit like Austrians who would be unsure whether they are Europeans. Really odd! After raising the concern, can you perhaps also explain its sources? gidonb (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - And this is why this webpage is entitled "List of mammals of North America NORTH OF MEXICO". There is another list for entire North America - "List of mammals of North America". And Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba, Curacoa, and Bonaire are located on South American shelf and tectonic plate. Darekk2 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba, Curacoa, Bonaire, and Trinidad & Tobago are on the South American plate. The continents and subcontinents are primarily a taxonomy in HUMAN geography with only sources in plate tectonics, climatology, and -as an intermediate- topography. gidonb (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - The ASM Mammal Diversity Database treats these teritories as South America. Darekk2 (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the proximity to South America, this makes sense. Covered in my statement "primarily a taxonomy in HUMAN geography". In such a case, you write in the intro that specific countries and territories are covered under mammals (or whatever) of South America, even though they belong to North America (because "continents and subcontinents are primarily a taxonomy in HUMAN geography") with the sources, one of them you just cited! Don't lose in the process that humans are mammals too and that these articles are written for human consumption. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To your other point, the idea that North America could start north of Mexico further feeds into fears that Mexicans sometimes express. As I warned, the name is a factor in the instability of the article. North America consists of three subcontinents: the Caribbean, Central America, and Northern America. ALL THREE ARE 100% NORTH AMERICA. Regardless of plates, climate, and other considerations. For Mexicans, being North American can be very important. We should respect that. gidonb (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Nobody has said that North America starts north of Mexico. You're creating fiction all the time. Darekk2 (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said that NORTH AMERICA STARTS ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF PANAMA AND ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF OF SOUTH AMERICA. My message was that we should be sensitive to other humans when they express fears. I expressed proven concerns about the stability of this article. It's a valid and important article. I supported keeping it under a more stable name. As it seems, to no avail. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Niko Omilana. As there seems to be substantial interest in a marge, history will be left intact to make this possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Defence League

AfDs for this article:

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

The NDL is not notable and the citations are about the founder, Niko Omilana, with the party being incidental. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations have no relation to the founder, including the media companies and the articles, and it is notable since the organization/political party was involved in the 2021 London mayoral elections. RowanJ LP (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I see what you meant, do you think it would be better to create an article about Niko Omilana, and merge the NDL article with that article? RowanJ LP (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my friend, RowanJ LP, yes, I think that would be best. Good idea. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do I have permission to create an article about Niko Omilana? RowanJ LP (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, RowanJ LP, you don't need permission to create any article. All that will matter is the notability of the subject and the quality of the page. My advice would be to start a Niko Omilana page in your sandbox, and in the meantime see what other editors think here. User:Epluribusunumyall is already onboard with this approach. I'm now very open to it. Very sincere regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the article, but it's already Semi-protected, anyway to get the silverlock topicon on top of the article? RowanJ LP (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was previously deleted in 2019. -Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into the article about the founder Niko Omilana. The articles content almost entirely centers around Niko and his previous run for Mayor, information which can be well covered in an article for its founder. There's no reason for a standalone article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to create a article on him but it keeps on getting turned into a redirect, and I'm not good for arguing for articles, any help on helping me get the page not turned into a redirect? RowanJ LP (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GA Melbourne (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article can't be Merged into Niko Omilana as that page is a Redirect as the result of a previous AFD. Is there another plausible Merge or Redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think no. this has become a cultural icon and we can not reemove it. I think we should make one about him as he is considered a politician after running in 2021. Anoymousgamer (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Niko Omilana: The topic isn't notable in of itself. I have reinstated Niko Omilana (after achieving consensus), therefore it is now possible to redirect this page there. - GA Melbourne (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't achieve consensus, you posed a question on an article talk page and a couple of people commented over the course of a few hours That's not a consensus to undo an AFD decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its was over the course of a week. - GA Melbourne (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must keep the Niko Defense League page. It's a political party and is a world wide movement of people who support Niko Omilana. It should stay. If it leaves then the Conservative Party and Labour Party must also leave. It will also be racism against black humans because you won't get rid of the English Defense League. Wikipedia should be a place of all articles, and it would be bad for Wikipedia if they become racist and remove the anti-racist organization. Anoymousgamer (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NDL is a major politcal movement rivaling the English Defense League . It would be wrong to keep it off. Anoymousgamer (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maven Clinic

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are acquisition, funding, X of Y articles (2), interviews with founder/ceo, press-releases, listicles and PR. scope_creep^Talk 00:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a lot of press but I can only find this as something that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. There are references from Bloomberg, Inc., and other reliable sources but they are mainly commentary, interviews, or routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm employed by Maven so I won't edit the article directly, but I wanted to respond to this criticism of the current sourcing. I also want to highlight additional sources that the editor may not have had time to look for before deciding to nominate this article. I've seen in other deletion discussions that three sources are required to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, so I'll discuss three existing sources first. This coverage in Fortune is an in-depth profile that points out how Maven is the first billion dollar company focusing on women's health. This coverage in Techcrunch almost eight years pointed out how Maven launched the first telemedicine platform for women. This coverage in Fast Company in 2020 pointed out how Maven was named one of the ten most innovative companies in health care. The company is widely considered a medical pioneer, which should meet the standards of notability. For new sources, I invite you to consider this in-depth coverage from November in Techcrunch, pointing out how Maven is bucking the trend of struggling late stage companies by attracting further investor interest. And rather than just being a simple funding announcement, the in-depth additional reporting includes news of the company partnering with Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield to begin serving Medicare patients. That's a big deal. In October, CNBC did an extensive company profile about how the company is booming, while discussing the implications of Roe Vs. Wade being overturned on the company's business model. I looked up WP:ORGCRIT invoked above, and it says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." All five sources are clearly independent and reliable, and the readers can see for themselves that the coverage is also significant. Kgeguchadze (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC) — Kgeguchadze (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COI, WP:SPA editor who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I'm with the company, as I said in my vote. I've seen these source review tables and thought one would be helpful here.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Profile in Fortune	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An in-depth profile of the company.
Profile in TechCrunch	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	2015 piece showing how company is a pioneer in telemedicine.
Fast Company ranking	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Company is named one of the most innovative health companies in 2020.
In-depth profile in TechCrunch	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	In-depth profile of company and its business model.
In-depth profile in CNBC	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	In-depth profile of company and its business model.

Kgeguchadze (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Kgeguchadze, you're an amazingly quick learner. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the references to show how bad they are:

Ref 1 [9] X of Y reads like a clickbait site. Non-RS.
Ref 2 [10] he largest deals in Midtown South included Maven Clinic taking 46,000 square feet at 160–170 Varick St. and TMRW expanding to 38,000 square feet at 250 Hudson St. Passing mention and fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 3 [11] PR. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 4 [12] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 5 [13] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 6 [14] Press-release and interview. Non-RS and Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 [15] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 8 [16] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 9 [17] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 10 [18] Another X of Y article. Complete dross. Lowest designed muck you can images. Trash.

So none of these references meet WP:SIRS. Looking at the references provided above.

Ref 1: [19] Funding news. Same ref as in the article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 2: [20] Says it all. Press-release.
Ref 3: [21] PR. Fails WP:SIRS. Not-indepth.
Ref 4: [22] Routine valuations. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 5: [23] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Not independent.

These references are pure junk. scope_creep^Talk 00:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm one of those who believe in the notion that UPEs shouldn't be rewarded (as the creator of this article has been blocked for that, but perhaps this company may not be aware of that UPE is a no go-area). User:Kgeguchadze were honest enough to declare their COI and present the sources exactly required by us (saving everyone's time). IMHO, this is the type of company we should cover as an encyclopedia and unicorns are almost always notable. There is a case-study on Maven by Harvard Business School, Maven Clinic: Women's Health in the Digital Age. Further in-depth sources are given below:
Maven Clinic, a telehealth provider, exceeds $1 billion in valuation, The New York Times
[24], Fortune (magazine)
In-depth profile on CNBC Disruptor 50, CNBC
[25]

2A01:E0A:2C9:A5E0:74A0:FDAF:92DA:F0F5 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COI, WP:SPA editor who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 02:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be insufficient independent, reliable, in-depth support for notability per WP:NCORP, e.g. many low-quality sources (such as Techcrunch, FierceHealthcare, Mobi Health News etc) churning PR copy, sources substantially and uncritically relying on statements by the founder, sources about the founder, trivial coverage of e.g. capital transactions, annual financial results, product or product line launches, personnel changes, 'best of' lists. My search for sources finds many press releases and sources that substantially rely on promotional statements by the founder. Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source-analysis provided by nominator make sense. The subject does not meet WP:NORG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the lastest references supplied by the coi editor:

Ref 1 [26] by Stern and Mehta, 3 March 2020. It is a case study for internal use only by Harvard University. Its not designed as an endorsement of the company, its not been written that way and it states it clearly in the opening page. It is not same kind of financial case study that a commercial bank would make or a technology evaluation case study that a technology review company would create. A substantial amout of it comes from Kate Ryder from interviews, for example [27], from the website, for example costs of treatement and a substantial block of the document has been taken from "Maven Clinic White Paper". It is essentially a description of the company from when it was created to the types of problems it has faced to a description of telemedicine providers. It essentially a primary source and can't be used to define notability, so fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 2 [28] This is from a press-release. The same text appears on multiple sites. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 3 [29] Same press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 4 [30] Lots of content take from founders blog, website and the same interview as abovr. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 5 [31] PR. Not independent.

None of these satisfy true secondary sources that lifted straight from the company website. All of them, in one way of another fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that most of the sources explained above are not useful. I don't see any further sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this advertorial article fails WP:NCORP. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. That there are COI and possible UPE editors and sockpuppets is very troubling, as is the fact that there are ~~two~~ three single purpose accounts on this AfD. Netherzone (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it troubling that the article was created by a now-blocked user who was blocked for using multiple accounts illegitimately. That the SPAs on this AfD are obviously experienced in wiki-code, policy, diffs, etc. leads one to think there may be some coordination going on or block evasion. Something seems fishy. Netherzone (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a curious nomination, given the strong sourcing. The nominator's persistent efforts to gaslight other editors and summarily reject a plethora of independent, reliable in-depth sources is strange. Labeling every keep voter as COI removes my need to assume good faith in return. Let's take a deeper look at the nom's AfD history to see if we can figure out what's going on. I saw this company discussion article where he (I'm assuming gender based on his unpleasant and badgering temperment) voted to keep. [In the AfD discussion,] he acknowledged that Sunnova is a public company, and said it must be notable because it's large and international. OK - that's fine, but oddly, there are only two independent sources. Look at the NY Times coverage. Using Scope's argument above, phrases like "The company said" and "Sunnova executives argue" should disqualify this source, since it's based on interviews. Of course it's gaslighting, and Wikipedia says nothing about interviews in its notability guidelines, but I'm making a point so bear with me. The other source is based on funding news, and I never heard of Capital Monitor. It's not on the reliable sources board. Using Scope's arguments about funding news, this is routine coverage and should be rejected. That's it - that's all the independent sourcing. And this was a keep vote for Scope. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this is different, and should raise some eyebrows about the nom's notability judgement. Since the Sunnova keep vote is wildely inconsistent for Scope, based on his efforts to delete this article, experienced editors and AfD stalkers alike will have to think about what is likely happening here. Is it a shared account? Even worse, that nomination was immediately withdrawn after Scope voted. Looks like a nominate and "pay to keep" scheme. This is potentially worse than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I reached out to Sunnova to see if they got an extortion letter after the article was nominated and will forward any evidence I can find, but they may be wary of getting attacked again. I also take exception to Beccanyr's odd comment that she looked up more sources and found press releases. How is that relevant? Plenty of good sources here in the article and in the discussion. The table shows good info. In any case, how does issuing a press release determine a company's notability? Gaslighting again, and a non-policy argument. Lastly, a lot of the company coverage comes in tandem with coverage of the founder, but there's also good in-depth coverage of others in the company, such as this Wall Street Journal piece [[32]]. A direct quote from that article "Since launching in 2014, Maven Clinic has become the world’s largest telemedicine provider for women’s and family health, supporting every aspect of reproductive care from preconception to early pediatrics." I'll wrap up by showing this Fast Company coverage which includes a founder's interview. All in all, the body of coverage makes this a clear keep. We can address the off-Wiki collaboration and gaslighting between the delete voters later. 68.5.3.227 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COI, WP:SPA editor who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also repeating the tiresome fallacy that articles which rely entirely on quotes and information from the company/execs are still acceptable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. This does not meet GNG and NCORP criteria for "Independent" sources, described in detail at WP:ORGIND. There's gaslighting going on alright but it isn't from scope_creep or anyone else. HighKing 11:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references discussing the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability, so two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So that excludes sources that regurgitate the info provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company. Topic therefore fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 11:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reference analysis by User:Scope creep. Also this article appears to be created by a sock / UPE. I imagine User:Kgeguchadze is also a sock from the same paid to edit WP company. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timtempleton, fyi. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Beccaynr. Yes it came back as possible. Of course paid editors are well versed in getting around CU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. I'm closing this discussion because it has evolved into a discussion of how to edit this article (and other ones) and not about whether this article should be Kept, Redirected, Merged or Deleted. I don't think a further relist will bring editors back to a proper AFD discussion so I'm just going to close this as Undecided. No penalty against a future AFD but the next one should focus on policy and notability factors and not get off-track and into the weeds on the subject of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City of Fresno discolored water investigation

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

For notability under WP:EVENT, it needs to have a large geographical scope. This has only been reported by media within the immediate region. It seems to fail notability requirements. Nweil (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mean, lots of places have discolored water at one point or another, although the "Flint Michigan water crisis" has an article. This seems to have ongoing legal issues for the last 10 years. Might be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep WP:GEOSCOPE is a heuristic: it does say that, but with a lot of "usually" and "not necessarily" qualifiers. This seems probably notable enough by all the other criteria.

(Flint water crisis, for easy clickability. It is a much longer article than this, but I also remember it being much more publicized.) ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 04:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AFD proposer I actually just noticed that the lawsuit was dismissed: [33] or [34] or [35]. Simply including that fact here for reference. Nweil (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It happened, but doesn't seem to have had much lasting coverage in media. Feel like it should be notable, but it's not backed up by sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Central Valley groundwater pollution and/or Environmental issues in Fresno, California. I think we weren't seeing notability because it's actually a large, important, and long-standing problem, of which this one incident in one neighborhood was only part. And none of the sources call it "discolored water investigation". The larger series of events is definitely notable, and in close proximity to Fresno. The aquifer of the entire valley has suffered from pollution for years if not decades. These sources look pertinent, and although several of them are governmental, they may suggest some alternate search terms.
Unsafe Drinking Water Is Bad Enough: But What If You're The One Tasked With Fixing It?, Kerry Klein, KVPR, May 15, 2019
California's Groundwater Live: Well Infrastructure, California Department of Water Resources]
Kern County Water Agency
Ground water in the Fresno area, California
SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA)
A case study simulation of DBCP groundwater contamination in Fresno County, California 2. Transport in the saturated subsurface, Keith Loague, Robert H. Abrams, Stanley N. Davis, Anh Nguyen, Iris T. Stewart, Available online 15 June 1998.
State warns more Valley groundwater agencies that their plans don’t meet standards, DANIELLE BERGSTROM, LOIS HENRY, SJV WATER AND JESSE VAD, SJV WATER DECEMBER 09, 2021 Fresno Bee
Persistence of Brine Pollution in Fresno, California Aquifer: 26 Years Later Jan A. Krancher, Clayton R. Auernheimer, Glenn Bisel Jr. and Kenneth D. Schmidt Journal of Environmental Health Vol. 43, No. 6 (May/June, 1981), pp. 314-318 (5 pages)

Published By: National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) https://www.jstor.org/stable/44537854— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

Unclear to me why corrosion of pipes inside houses would be an "environmental" issue? The groundwater was never considered the issue here? Nweil (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno's municipal water system uses ground water. It's something that would be blindingly obvious in California but not be spelled out until the coverage got to explainers in the national media. Also, a lot of hyperlocal coverage of pollution that uses another location name but is still quite close. Visalia comes to mind but there are others. As I recall it's the same aquifer. As for pipes -- I have no paid attention to whether the corroded pipes were inside or outside the house, but it doesn't really matter. The city water supply is not supposed to eat through plumbing. It's just that one way that lead can get into drinking water is if the pipes are older (thus made of lead) and the water is acidic. That is what happened in Flint. I just did a copy edit on Environmental issues in Fresno, California; it isn't comprehensive because that scope is too limited also, since the it's a Central Valley problem really, and I haven't looked at that article yet. But there is already a paragraph there about the discolored water. It would be trivial to add the rest of this material into that section. Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visalia for example is 44 miles from Fresno. Orosi is 30. Elinruby (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should refer to the lawsuit documentation. The affected homeowners are claiming that their problems started when the surface water treatment plant came online in 2004. So not groundwater, it's water from the San Joaquin River. Also, with regards to lead, the Fresno water never exceeded EPA standard maximum levels. Nweil (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its difficult for me to say there is any "environmental issue" happening when this type of thing is regulated by somewhat overlapping jurisdictions of multiple agencies (Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board and the US Environmental Protection Agency) and none of them issued a violation to the city for anything related to this. Its pretty clear to me that this page was created as part of the class action lawsuit coming to a head (created in early September of last year and the hearings started a few weeks later). The person who created the page has really only worked on this page and I have concerns about WP:COI. If anything it should be merged into a currently nonexistent City of Fresno Department of Public Works page since its way more about the operation of the water system than anything else. Nweil (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said the cause was pipes inside houses. Look, I can look at the lawsuit documentation. But if your concern is the lawsuit, then I would assume you want to deny them a separate article (?) I'm suggesting a merge to another article, which would do that. I disagree with a couple of the other things you said, but let's stay focused Elinruby (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

followup after more reading Hmm the question of what and how to merge would remain. The City of Fresno seems eager to minimize any liability it might have and therefore isn't a reliable independent source. The concern about COI in this article looks well-founded though.

Sorting through the facts as best I can at the moment: The City of Fresno relies on groundwater and needs to solve that. The northeast water treatment plant (now closed for reasons that aren't clear) produced a mixture of surface water and groundwater. If the surface water was from the San Joaquin -- not verified but likely, based on geography -- its notoriety for pollution would be irrelevant, as most of the runoff pollution would take place downstream of there. On the other hand, if that plant was using groundwater all, it would be drawing from the edge of a highly polluted and depleted aquifer where it meets the Sierras. So I don't know whether to absolutely discount this lawsuit, and given the city's lack of transparency and somewhat specious explanations, I don't think I should. The primary importance of where pipes need to be replaced is whether the expense would be the city's, for example.

Yet the article as it stands relies heavily on a paywalled Fresno Bee article about a conversation on NextDoor. The Bee is definitely reliable, but whether everything said in that NextDoor conversation was accurate is another matter. The name I dislike was used by the city, who should know better. Residents weren't worried about the color but whether the water was "tainted." As an aside, red water might simply be caused by iron rust, so the color itself was not a problem if that is all it was. However, according to anybody involved, there were traces of more than iron in quite a few of the samples. (I think that I read that the standard for a water system is that less than 10% of samples should contain lead, and I think that was true. That might be why Nweil said lead was not an issue. I actually only mentioned Flint because somebody did further up, as an example of a notable water issue.) There are parallels, but I don't think this episode should have a separate article.

I think the proper weight for this incident is something like this: The city of Fresno attempted to mitigate its reliance on groundwater, a sound policy decision. However complaints and a lawsuit arose. (If we can determine the validity of the complaints, so much the better, but if not we stop there.) Pretty much this is already in Environmental issues in Fresno, California, although the wording should be checked to make sure that we don't seem to be validate it, since we don't know if it is valid or not, and the record-keeping and compliance problems should be mentioned. I am willing to do that checking. After that I would have no objection to deleting. As an aside I didn't see any mention of testing for nitrates, which I would expect. Did I miss something? Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite would be needed, as the paragraph that is there is rather misleading. I can't do it at the moment and should perhaps pause to assess consensus. But that's my proposal. Elinruby (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Environmental issues in Fresno, California has a lot of issues as well but I updated it with regards to the water pollution section. Feel free to review Nweil (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Environmental issues in Fresno, California has a lot of problems. I am thinking for example of deleting the uncited ambiguous sentence about radon out of the lead, unless you have a better idea. Your rewrite on the water pollution section is a definite improvement. Two things jumped out: I think we should mention that the lawsuit was dismissed on technical grounds. The homeowners couldn't prove who did the work on the meter installations, as I understand it. Just to prevent from giving the impression that their complaints were groundless. On the other hand, I thought the quotes were rather long and boring, maybe to the point of undue. I'll try to be more specific after pondering it a while. Elinruby (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps Central Valley groundwater pollution is worse Elinruby (talk)

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!} 05:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Haroon

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are Facebook, Instagram and blackhat SEO sites. The previous AFD resulted in a soft delete, so the author requested undeletion. Maduant (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. Maduant (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO, Facebook, Insta and unreliable sources. I can't find anything in reliable media. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertions of notability, so fails WP:NMUSICIAN. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 04:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OneCricket

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB. Coverage is routine in nature and limited to promotional press releases and namedrops. Maduant (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cricket, Websites, and India. Maduant (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although it fails to meet WP:WEBCRIT as the refs are unreliable and not working too, reliable sources just embedding the OneCricket Tweets on their pages. The reason is to Weak, there is a race of media and the same web content companies where why would one company promote its competitor. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 04:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summer on the Hill at Horace Mann

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

Article includes no references, and WP:BEFORE search returns little notable coverage. Horace Mann School is an existing article, and this page could redirect to it (source: [36]), but I'm not sure if this is due for inclusion in that article. Trikekus (:3) 02:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Trikekus (:3) 02:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can furnish references to multiple independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this topic. This unreferenced article has existed in an unverifiable state for 11 years. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023

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

Poorly organized article started by a new user. This article goes against the general criteria for outbreak articles followed by the wikiproject, and other users had previously decided against an article at Talk:Tornadoes of 2023. United States Man (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – What US Man said. Poodle23 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple users in WP:Weather already was having a discussion about not creating an article. It does not follow WP:NWEATHER and is poorly organized. I wish speedy delete could occur, but unfortunately, it doesn't qualify for that. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so that the draft could be improved if desired. Delete after Poodle23's comment. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm not going to try and make an argument against this, but i will say what multiple people here have already said: Making an article about it was decided against here. Poodle23 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The event as a whole will probably be under a winter storm article, so its not like it won't be in an article. An article for just the tornadoes, though, is ridiculous. Please delete this and try again with a more notable event. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only thing notable about this outbreak is an EF3 tornado that caused a tornado emergency and 6 injuries. This, however, is not enough to justify an article. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To appropriate section on Tornadoes of 2023. No reason not to have a redirect. As an aside, if this was to be a winter storm article, shouldn’t someone make one? 71.125.62.146 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Based on geolocation and edit history, this IP is one of the many socks of Andrew5. Thus, it should have no valid opinion as a frequent block evader. United States Man (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not pass WP:NWEATHER guidelines. Already had a discussion about being against the idea of creating an article about this tornado outbreak. Article is poorly organized and the only sign of notability is about the Pasadena tornado, but isn't enough for an article about this tornado outbreak. Article can be also said in Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25. Tails Wx 21:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 00:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersmith Press

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

Orphaned article that I couldn't find any real information on in a WP:BEFORE. The company's about page makes me think it might publish fringe health books which is probably why its hard to find reliable sources for. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their website header indicates that they were awarded Best Publisher in the 2017 People's Book Prize, also verifiable here (also indicating that the company began in 2009, not 2004). However the site (on which they are a listed participant) indicates these awards are based on online voting; it is unclear whether they are notable in themselves. AllyD (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails per WP:NCORP, the only source is giving 404, on the other side searches are from social media and directory listing websites. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wallring (disambiguation)

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

This is a list of examples of wallrings rather than disambiguation of titles. Only Hamburg Wallring has 'Wallring' in the title; Braunschweig and Recklinghausen do not mention a wallring at all. No disambiguation is needed. Leschnei (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Germany. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely WP:OR. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No disambiguation is needed/justified. gidonb (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 00:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Tyler and Charlee Worley

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

Not notable; murders/killings happen every day and this particular one isn't widely reported on by reliable secondary sources. Some1 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tragic double murder but such terrible killings are far too common. I see no evidence of ongoing coverage or wider impact after the murders and the trial. I am sure that loved ones still mourn but that is not enough to justify an encyclopaedia article, or to establish notability of this crime. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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