From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 01 December 03 >
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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Bahare Alavi

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

Article has been denied multiple times in the Articles for Creation process. However, it had been moved to the mainspace by the creator in disregard of the issues raised. Namely, it is my and previous reviewers' stance that the subject does not meet the general notability guideline. Most of the text and sources are obituary-like and the salvageable content would better fit as a part or section in another article. The article was similarly deleted on the Farsi Wikipedia. Dege31 ( talk) 17:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article's sources are complete and she is well-known among the Women and human right activists. حمیدنوذری ( talk) 05:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom and checking source and trivial coverage of the subject Mardetanha ( talk) 11:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I'm not seeing any coverage that stands out as being independent, significant, and reliable, so I don't think that the GNG is met. My searches aren't finding any additional sources, although I'm always glad to reëvaluate if something more can be identified. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well sourced and passes notability. [ [1]] Let's also not be to fast to exclude sources that Americans or Westerners may discount due to the fact many of these regions have no media. This is. An example of that [ [2]

Super ( talk) 03:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Signing a letter (along with 213 others) does not establish notability, nor does being mentioned on a blog. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
She lived in a country that was repressive to women. The fact she has a much a she does is proof enough of notability. Super ( talk) 15:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep She was not only a signer of a very imoprtant letter in women right history in iran but one of the most active human right fighter and leader who tried to lead other people to participate the campaign of reforming anti women laws in Iran and she was well-known for all people in that campaign. حمیدنوذری ( talk) 13:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above, lots of RS and passes WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 23:38, 7 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Dhanish Semar

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. Created by a single purpose editor so possible WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar ( talk) 23:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The article is based entirely on 1st party sourcing. (Best source is the Forbes interview, which is a series of softball questions followed by paragraphs from the subject.) Given that his claim to fame is a blog series that is shut down, and a YouTube channel with less than 3,000 subs, I don't think any better sources are likely to be found. ApLundell ( talk) 05:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of songs recorded by the Rolling Stones as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Potted Shrimp

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

Fails WP:NSONG; I can't find any significant coverage of the song, and even the unreliable sources cited in the article are not about the song specifically. There doesn't seem to be a good merge/redirect target as this recording isn't on any notable release (though redirecting to potted shrimps as an alternative spelling/capitalisation of the dish is of course possible). Lennart97 ( talk) 23:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • I'm not sure how I am supposed to reply to this so apologies if I'm doing it incorrectly. Although you are correct in saying that the music is not especially well known or significant within the Stones' catalogue, the whole reason that this is a useful entry on wiki is that when searching for information on it one does - as you noted - get sent to Potted Shrimps the food. So I feel that having this minor but helpful entry is well worthwhile for folks who are interested in the lesser known work of the Rolling Stones - which is actually quite a considerable body of people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikbek ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Malikbek: I've correctly formatted your reply for you. You may want to check out WP:TALK and specifically WP:SIGN. As for Potted Shrimp, your argument for keeping this article boils down to "it's useful", which is not a valid reason to keep an article; lots of topics are of interest to some specific audience but not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, because they fail Wikipedia's notability standards. This is the case for Potted Shrimp as well, unless you can show that is has in fact received signifcant independent coverage from reliable sources. Lennart97 ( talk) 11:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Thank you Lennart97. Reading "it's useful" it says If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. I thought that my reasons above ought to be enough to show such usefulness and while by your definitions the tracks are not especially prominent, I would have thought that here the usefulness argument might be allowed to trump the notability one. I do understand that one shouldn't open an endless number of pages for entirely insignificant subjects, but the whole reason I wrote about this was that it was useful and to spend time consciously removing a referenced and genuinely useful - if niche - piece of information seems a little sad and unnecessary though I greatly admire you for taking the time and trouble to work on keeping wikipedia clean of rubbish. Malikbek ( talk) 10:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
        • You're right that usefulness can be a valid reason for keeping an article, but the reasons you've given here are, in my opinion, very unlikely to trump our core notability guideline. We don't have to ultimately agree on this matter with each other, though – the decision to keep or delete will be made by an uninvolved administrator, weighing the strength of our arguments and those of any other participants in the discussion. Lennart97 ( talk) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NSONG. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of songs recorded by the Rolling Stones. There is a passing mention here to verify it. The song is a brilliant kick-ass instrumental with 3/5 of the stones and Stephen Stills (and possibly Nicky Hopkins?) but that's not a reason to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And a raspberry for theleekycauldron, because that was terrible :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

2028 in sports

2028 in sports (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON? Only 3 listed events, versus 6 for the preceding 2027 in sports, and 2 of those are the Summer Olympics and Paralympics. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 in sports. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:00, 2 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Vicki Brittle

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

Not seeing any significant coverage in outside sources—a few passing mentions, but none of the stuff that guarantees notability. No special WP:NSINGER requirements are met, either, so I don't see a reason to include. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (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 Colombia–Ecuador relations. Consensus is to redirect, but obviously no strong consensus on what the best target is. I'll redirect it to Colombia–Ecuador relations for now, but feel free to change the redirect target and/or start a discussion somewhere to find a stronger consensus on where to redirect. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Colombia, Quito

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article merely confirms the embassy exists and 1 of the references is google maps. LibStar ( talk) 22:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Qwaiiplayer: Forgive me, but I am somewhat confused. How is your proposed list article target, itself just a list of many countries in a table, "more specific" than the target I proposed which is 'specifically' about relations between the two countries in question (which is pertinent for an embassy)? Bungle ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Bungle: The article is about the embassy, and the list has pertinent information about the embassy. People searching for Embassy of Colombia, Quito are more likely to be interested in information about the embassy itself than Colombia-Ecuador relations in general. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 23:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Brieuc Vourch

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

Courtesy nomination on behalf of Bvourch1, who claims to be the subject and whose sole edit to date was to tag the article with the edit summary "I am not a public person and do not understand why this is online. I would like my informations to remain private. Please delete this article, which is full of errors and approximations." As for my own view, I have not yet evaluated the provided sources. If kept, article looks like it could use a bit of de-promo-ization. -- Finngall talk 22:29, 2 December 2021 (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 as an overly broad list per WP:SALAT. RL0919 ( talk) 23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

List of extinct plants

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

Not to be confused with List of recently extinct plants, which I think is a valid topic, a single-article list of every extinct plant ever described, including both fossil and recently extinct plants is unmaintainable, the article as is, is hopelessly incomplete. I could maybe see specific sublists like "List of extinct ferns" or "List of extinct conifers" being maintainable, but a single list of every extinct plant ever is just not encyclopedic. The list if close to being comprehensive, would be enormous, and difficult to navigate. We already have organised lists of plants described by year, see 2020 in paleobotany for an example. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A list does not have to be completed to be valid. "Unmaintainable" is not a valid reason to delete. This is clearly an encyclopedic list. WP:LISTN, second paragraph, please read it. This list is clearly informational and navigational. Dream Focus 22:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Over 200 new species of fossil plants have been described in 2021 alone, see 2021 in paleobotany, there are many thousands of described fossil plants, they couldn't be comfortably maintained on a single list. I wouldn't be opposed to an article of Lists of extinct plants, however, but nobody would bother to maintain it anyway. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      The current list already divides things by geologic period they went extinct in, as well as other categories. If the list gets too big, those divides could be split off into other articles. Dream Focus 04:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category:Triassic plants alone has 45 articles, versus 10 for this list. Or if we are not to lose this information, I'd recommend splitting up multiple lists, similar to the lists of animals at Lists of extinct species. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep The list needs improvement. What it should be is a list of lists that guides folks to smaller, more specific extinction lists for places and times. Understandably, that is quite an undertaking, given just how many extinct species there are. So while I think the list should be improved, I could also live with it simply being a category. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 23:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not incredibly familiar with list policy, to be transparent, but WP:SALAT recommends against excessively broad lists; either way, such a list as this seems ridiculous on the face of it. Would we have an article called "list of plants" or "list of extinct animals"? Or a list of words in the English language? I struggle to think so. LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 23:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Question: Are there any plant species from the Jurassic say that aren't extinct? It would seem rather unlikely that a species could exist unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Not as far as I am aware. There are extant genera that have been around since the Jurassic, like Ginkgo, Sequoia, and Amentotaxus, but I don't think there are any extant species. There are some extant species that have been around for tens of millions of years, like Ginkgo biloba (see [4]) but they don't really get any older than the Paleogene. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Having done some further reading, there are reports of the extant fern species Osmundastrum cinnamomeum extending into the Late Cretaceous, around 70 million years ago, [5] that's some extreme longevity, and certainly exceptional. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Is this a list of extinct genera, or extinct species? It seems to include both. Not that it really matters, since it seems to broad either way. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
From reading, it's inconsistently both. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Banksia#Evolution and fossil record is another notable example, imo. ~ cygnis insignis 03:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
That's a genus, rather than a species; important distinction in this particular case. LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 03:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Pardon the indent level, it was an ad for them at the mention of ancient genera, to which I might add Wollemia and Cephalotus. ~ cygnis insignis 06:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SALAT. Being extinct isn't a defining characteristic of a plant species or genera - almost all are. This is a 'list of plants', excluding a small subset, and as such impossibly broad in scope. WP:SALAT gives "list of brand names" as an example of a list "far too long to be of value", and this list is potentially at least capable of being far longer - the only reason it isn't is that Wikipedia isn't capable of compiling it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree, to an extent, but the total number of extinct plant species that have actually been described is dwarfed by living plant species (which number approximately 320,000), because the vast majority of what once existed is not preserved in the fossil record. The list of extinct plants on their own is still very large, especially if we are counting pollen species. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SALAT and AndyTheGrump's point that being extinct isn't a defining characteristic of a plant. Also, I just don't see how a list like this could be workable with 200+ extinct plants per year being discovered. Maybe there could be lists for the specific periods, geographic areas, or something. I don't really know, but I least know this isn't a workable list. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree that List of recently extinct plants is useful, but a list of all extinct plants lumped together regardless of the taxonomic position of the plant or the geological time in which it occurred is too broad, not based on a defining characteristic, and so not useful. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SALAT, Looking at the taxa lists for geologic formations such as the Allenby Formation or Klondike Mountain Formation, or at the Year in Paleobotany lists (eg 2020 in paleobotany) shows just how extensive the paleobotanical record is. This list is simply a wp:Coatrack of random plants, which is why I stopped contributing to it a number of years ago.-- Kev min § 17:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the salient observation that "almost all species are extinct". This would be an unsupportably broad list. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
"If" it gets too long? I'm not sure you properly understand the scale at play with "every extinct plant". LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 22:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Also it might make sense for recently extinct plants, but not for most extinct plants, many of which were extinct before the present land masses existed, let alone the countries. Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Well Category:Extinct plants divides them by continent, type, and time period. Dream Focus 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The earliest 'extinct plant' listed is Eorhynia, from the Late Silurian. Our article says that "Fossils were found in Podolia in modern Ukraine". Which continent would that be listed under? From what I can figure out (I'm no geologist, so may very well be wrong) the answer seems to be Baltica. How many of our readers have even heard of Baltica? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I think by this time Baltica had collided with Laurentia to form Laurussia, but your point still stands. It makes very little sense to group the pre- Cenozoic plants of the Indian subcontinent as those of Asia for instance, when it wasn't part of Asia during this time. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
We know where the fossils were found in the modern era, so that's how they should be sorted. We can't accurately sort things by time period since you can't tell when a plant went extinct, only when the ones that left fossils died, others still living for countless years perhaps. Dream Focus 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Where fossils were found in the modern era is not any kind of defining feature of the fossil, and grouping in this way just tends to encourage pointless nationalism. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per WP:SALAT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Could WP:SALAT concerns be fixed by repurposing the article as "List of Fossil Plants", and removing any overlap with the "Recently extinct" list? There's already a redirect from List of fossil plants. ApLundell ( talk) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in principle, this is unmaintainable as-is. But it looks like there's some material from the "modern extinctions" section that isn't yet in List of recently extinct plants. With listy material there's not really a need to retain the edit history, but it'd still be easier to cross-check if it were redirected, so that would work too. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I've archived the relevant material to User:Hemiauchenia/sandboxExtinctPlants if anybody is interested in using it. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too broad for WP. As per WP:SALAT Deathlibrarian ( talk) 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep: Changes to structure, header layout, usage of paragraphs, and increased summarisation can help make this page manageable. DTM ( talk) 06:50, 9 December 2021 (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. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 23:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Bart Plantenga

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

Last AfD was no consensus. fails WP:AUTHOR. no indepth coverage, no major awards won, no notable publications LibStar ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The subject is extremely notable as the world's leading expert on yodeling, with both reliable news articles stating this along with reviews in places like Library Journal. His books on yodeling have been published by extremely well regarded scholarly presses such as Routledge and the University of Wisconsin Press and he also wrote the entry on yodeling in Music Around the World: A Global Encyclopedia. In addition, he also appears to be notable for his non-yodeling writings, with his works excerpted and covered in anthologies such as Up Is Up, But So Is Down New York's Downtown Literary Scene, 1974-1992 from NYU Press. I have rewritten the article to add more of this information along with citations.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete just publishing doesn't make someone notable if their work isn't reviewed in independent sources. The only review currently cited in the article is this one and a very brief library journal review and I wasn't able to find more. Other than that the most significant independent coverage appears to be the hudsonvalleyone article, which isn't very substantial. Not quite enough for a GNG pass imo, although it's borderline. ( t · c) buidhe 16:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I just added more reviews and coverage of the subject's works from Rolling Stone, American Book Review, Booklist, Wisconsin State Journal, Review of Contemporary Fiction, The New York Times, and Entertainment Weekly. I think all of this combined proves notability.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 16:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep in light of SouthernNights's contributions. Lead section could still be way improved, though. - Headphase ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2021 (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 Kamchatka earthquakes. There seems to be some agreement that merging 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes into the same article would be appropriate, but we can't necessarily consider this discussion as evidence of consensus for that action as well. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

2020 Kamchatka earthquake

2020 Kamchatka earthquake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:ITEXISTS, so what? Yes it is a large earthquake (largest since ...), but without any lasting impacts whatsoever, it does not need an article. Also, this event was first published under 2020 Kuril Islands earthquake before being turned to a redirect. -- Dora the Axe-plorer ( Nopen't) 02:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: It's a well written article that seems to be notable enough. I see absolutely no pressing reason to get rid of it. Also, there's no special notability criteria for earthquakes, but my personal impression is anything 7.5 or higher should be presumed to be notable. It's a major geological event irrespective of where it happens. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 03:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
You're not getting the point, Wikipedia is not a catalog for every 7.5+ around the world regardles of if nothing happened. There really isn't anything notable about this event without any impacts or scientific interest. See Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) for a guide. -- Dora the Axe-plorer ( Nopen't) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the link. The opinions shared in the essay seem to mirror my gut instinct: "M 7+ earthquakes are probably notable, but should meet additional criteria." The earthquake seems notable enough based on sources (i.e. [6] [7]), notable enough based on magnitude (7.5), well written, and absolutely no pressing need to get rid of it. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 04:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
"should meet additional criteria" which it does not. I haven't come across any news reports other than ohh, a 7.5 stuck offshore, watch out for a (damaging) tsunami (that didn't manifest). There are reports of a small tsunami and nothing else so it might as well be included in the List of earthquakes in 2020. This is not something a non-earthquake expert would remember simply because it exists. -- Dora the Axe-plorer ( Nopen't) 05:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
News reports of the earthquake and resulting tsunami from RS would seem to suffice to establish notability. But on top of that, at minimum, there is one published in-depth scientific analysis:
The 25 March 2020 MW 7.5 Paramushir, northern Kuril Islands earthquake and major (MW ≥ 7.0) near-trench intraplate compressional faulting -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 06:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
No lasting impact is the point .. which you clearly don't get. A published study and shallow news stories does not establish notability whatsoever; this event was probably notable only on that day it occurred ... there are no extended coverage in the weeks and months after that. I'll just ping @ Dawnseeker2000 and Mikenorton: for their thoughts on this. -- Dora the Axe-plorer ( Nopen't) 12:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Also just because it is well written doesn't mean it's notable. There simply should not be an article for this earthquake for its lack of significant coverage. period. -- Dora the Axe-plorer ( Nopen't) 12:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Being the subject of articles all over the world plus at least one scientific study is significant coverage. In terms of WP:LASTING one major earthquake on a fault changes the nature of the fault and CAN have an impact on the next major earthquake. Do you disagree? -- Bob drobbs ( talk)
Coverage of an earthquake without any lasting impact in major news agencies is not notable, neither is one published scientific study. To answer the question, every earthquake makes another likely; either on the same fault or the faults nearby. But no other earthquakes have occurred in the immediate area, even so, this event still fails the basic notability criteria for inclusion. -- Dora the Axe-plorer ( Nopen't) 13:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Dora the Axe-plorer: To me international coverage, national coverage, local coverage, plus multiple in-depth analyses confer basic notability. But let me ask you another question. If there was a M 9.0 earthquake tomorrow on the same fault, would a bunch of people want to refer to this article? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
No, a bunch of people (the general public, I assume) wouldn't refer to this article. A 7.5 south of the Kamchatka Peninsula isn't going to be remembered by non-earthquake experts, even if a 9.0 follows-up. Dora the Axe-plorer ( Nopen't) 22:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Agree to disagree then. I was in a 6.9 earthquake. I have interest in all earthquakes that are ~20x more powerful than that, doubly so if they end up being the precursor to an even larger quake. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 01:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It may be well written but it does not justify it being significant. No one was afflicted and has not brought up any scientific significance thus immediately making it not suitable for having its own article. -- Moctiwiki ( Moctiwiki) 13:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    There doesn't seem to be some scientific significance in the study I listed above:

    "We examine the rupture of this event and consider it in the context of rare major (MW>7.0) near-trench intraplate compressional events along with updating a global compilation of temporal behavior of near-trench tensional and compressional activity relative to major interplate ruptures."

    -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No lasting impact - fails WP:EVENT. Mikenorton ( talk) 15:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Does WP:EVENT apply to natural disasters? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Yes, as is made clear when you read the guideline - it even uses earthquakes as examples. Mikenorton ( talk) 09:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Thanks. I missed that example. But I'd say the article clearly meets WP:GNG based on articles written about it around the world, and in terms of WP:LASTING a 7.5 earthquake is a major shift in the earth's crust. There are lasting impacts of that which might be only uncovered the next time there's a 8-9 earthquake in the region. Yet again, I see no pressing need to remove this. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I added a couple of sources to the article which might help clarify notability. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment searching for the subject in Russian gives a mix of articles about various recent Kamchatka earthquakes. A couple discuss it in slightly more depth than "there was an earthquake", but not significantly so. Rusalkii ( talk) 20:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I added a source assessment table. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 23:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bob drobbs
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/russia-kuril-islands-earthquake-tsunami-warning-issued-after-75-magnitude-event Yes Yes Yes International news; subject of article. ✔ Yes
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/25/quake-hits-off-russias-kuril-islands-prompting-tsunami-alert-a69744 Yes Yes Yes National news; subject of article ✔ Yes
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/tsunami-warnings-after-magnitude-78-quake-off-russias-kuril-islands Yes Yes Yes International news; subject of article. ✔ Yes
https://www.vicnews.com/news/tsunami-not-expected-for-b-c-after-7-5-magnitude-earthquake-hits-near-russia/ Yes Yes Yes International news; subject of article ✔ Yes
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/25/quake-hits-off-russias-kuril-islands-prompting-tsunami-alert-a69744 Yes Yes Yes National news; subject of article ✔ Yes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X20306725 Yes Yes Yes In-depth scientific analysis ✔ Yes
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/at00q7qai7/executive Yes Yes Yes US Government site; significant coverage ✔ Yes
https://ia41.ru/2020/03/25/operativnye-gruppy-obsleduyut-zdaniya-posle-silnogo-zemletryaseniya-na-kamchatke/ Yes ? Yes Local news; subject of article ? Unknown
https://www.znak.com/2020-03-25/zhiteli_petropavlovska_kamchatskogo_snyali_na_video_zemletryasenie Yes ? Yes Local news; subject of article ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Keep based on Bob drobbs assessment. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 15:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete this please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Very Insignificant Event That is not worthy of an article-- Hanami-Sakura ( talk) 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The purpose of WP:EVENT is to clarify the tension between WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. There is little doubt that this earthquake meets GNG, but that is not in itself sufficient, it should also meet the requirements outlined in EVENT. When the latter refers to lasting impact it means on people not rocks and there is no evidence of that. Coverage should also persist beyond the normal news cycle. Of the sources listed in the table above, only one is not from the immediate period of the earthquake. Mikenorton ( talk) 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
If a concert gets international coverage, we can't predict it will inspire something bigger. With earthquakes, we can predict the future. We know a larger quake will happen along this fault, in part triggered by this quake. The only question is when.
WP:LASTING: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable ... It may take weeks or months [or years] to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 16:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 22:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to see some analysis of the source assessment prepared by Bob drobbs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to List of earthquakes in 2020. No lasting impact but it is well sourced and useful to be included in a list article. Polyamorph ( talk) 12:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep It appears that there are enough sources to make this article viable, but I think Polyamorph's idea is also acceptable. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on merge I've been arguing for keep, but I have no objections to a merge. However, I think the wrong target is suggested above:
There's an article for Kamchatka earthquakes which only discusses 3 earthquakes: 1737 (8.3?), 1923 (8.5?), 1952 (9.0). There's a "see also" for another 7.6 earthquake, 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes. The 2006 earthquake is not well sourced, though there were a few dozen injuries. So, if it's to be a merge, I'd suggest merging both the 2006 and 2020 earthquakes into the Kamchatka earthquakes page. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 21:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Certainly the most appropriate merge target in terms of title, but it will need to be extensively rewritten and expanded to explain all the different types of "Kamchatka earthquakes". Mikenorton ( talk) 11:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Bob drobbs above, as an alternate to deletion. @ Bob drobbs: Even if deleted, maybe because a closer goes by votes, there are other options. You can request userfication or you can place the sourced content in the article you choose and change your !vote to "Delete" as redundant. There is more than one way to skin a Martian. -- Otr500 ( talk) 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to suitable higher level article. Not particularly opinionated as to which, but Kamchatka earthquakes sounds appropriate. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:59, 11 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

PixCell Medical

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The style is also very promotional. There are some press mentions at reliable sources, but they are almost certainly based on press-releases ( [8], [9]). -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • I respect all opinions here and can see the argument leans strongly towards deletion. However, let me try to defend the article, at least so I don't take it too personally.
I found the sources to be valid with much more sources than can be found for similar Israeli companies, as for them being based on PR and promotional activities - I have no idea, but I tried to be as objective as possible. I don't write much in the English Wiki, preferring the Hebrew Wiki where much more work is needed, however, I am aware of the guidelines and issues with commercial/promotional tones in Wikipedia - which is why I checked comparable company articles to assess the notability of PixCell, which I found to be on par and sometimes more notable than similar articles.
The article doesn't feel too promotional in tonality (again in comparison to others), but I could try to rephrase to make it less promotional - however, as the main argument here is on PixCell's notability, I'm not sure that could help. As long as it's not deleted beforehand, I will try to revisit my phrasing in the coming days when I have some time.
As for notability, a relatively senior and stable company compared with most Israeli start-ups, it developed a technology based on scientific research at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology). According to media publications, this is quite a breakthrough in the world of blood testing in remote regions and improving healthcare quality. This could be just blatant promotional material as argued here, but, taken at face value, I believe this to be an interesting and suitable company to write about. Jakednb ( talk) 08:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Jakednb: Please tell what is your relation to PixCell Medical, Vidisco, SolidRun and Bermad. Is there a possible WP:COI here? -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 08:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Bbarmadillo: as far as I can tell there's no conflict of interest here, as I was not paid or was not employed by these companies. Both Vidisco and Bermad were companies that I had known via my professional life, but again, was not paid to write about. SolidRun and PixCell are both companies I came across and found it lacking they didn't have an article. People who know I edit in Wikipedia do from time to time ask for my help, but this is always done to the highest objectivity and professionalism I can muster (as was the case with Bermad) Jakednb ( talk) 15:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Article does not show anything to support WP:GNG, looks promotional. Alex-h ( talk) 11:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:01, 8 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

BrightVolt

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

Promotional article regarding a non-notable company. Created by a user blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and heavily edited by a user blocked for COI/promotional edits & username. No significant secondary coverage; what exists is limited to a few articles about a recent funding round. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Pais arepa 19:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Siliguri Boys' High School

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

Sources have been sought for 11 years. This place may not even exist. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Nick Baughman

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

WP:BLP of a businessperson, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for businesspeople. The notability claim here is that he's the founder of a record label -- except that the name of the record label he purportedly founded wronglinks to a video game company he wasn't a founder of, with no indication that his record label has a Wikipedia article at all -- and that he "has relationships with many artists, venues, clubs, and record labels in the Virginia/Washington D.C. area", which isn't a notability claim. And as for referencing, the article is completely unsourced except for his own company's self-published website about itself, which is (a) a dead link, and (b) not support for notability in and of itself even if it were still live. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage to establish his significance. Bearcat ( talk) 18:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Just for the record, I considered speedying, but the article's existed since 2011 and there's been a prod attempt in its past. Bearcat ( talk) 13:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this index article does not serve as a useful navigational aid, and does not provide any utility beyond that which is already provided by existing categories, outlines, and the search functionality built in to WP. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Index of Brazil-related articles

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

An alphabetic list of Brazil-related articles. Effectively unmaintained since not long after its creation in late 2008, it's got fewer than 600 entries. That's a tiny fraction of the more than 35,000 articles currently tracked by the Brazil Wikiproject. Such an incomplete index can mislead readers into believing we don't have the articles when in fact we do.

In principle, such lists don't have much value for readers any more (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles). In this particular case, if the list were to be made complete, it would be unworkably large. There's also no scope for converting into a more curated list of important Brazil-related topics, because that's alraedy done at Outline of Brazil. – Uanfala (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

    • One option would be to keep nominating individual articles until there’s an unquestionable consensus to delete the format, then bundle nominate them in batches until they’re gone. That’s how a lot of pointless “list of politicians by [x]” lists were cleared out. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are thousands of Brazil-related articles, and listing a small fraction of them in alphabetical order is useless for readers. We have main articles, we have an outline organized by topic, we have categories, and we have the search bar, so I am confused why pages like this still exist. I oppose turning this into a disambig, but it could redirect to Outline of Brazil that could link to the relevant categories and project pages. Reywas92 Talk 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as a navigational index per WP:NLIST, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." SailingInABathTub ( talk) 00:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this and all other lists of this type as indiscriminate lists. How are they actually useful? Geschichte ( talk) 10:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
They are navigational indices per WP:LISTPURP. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 11:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • That utterly fails to explain what makes it useful. How does this help you navigate? What does this have that the outline doesn't? (okay, the outline's not that long, but it's actually organized and would be more helpful for navigation if merged appropriately!) That categories don't? That the search bar doesn't? This has zero organization or criteria for what is and is not included so I see little use for it or a blanket inclusion for listing any number of links merely because they are links./ Reywas92 Talk 14:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:LISTPURP explains, "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." SailingInABathTub ( talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Or they can browse an outline that may be more helpful to them since it's organized by "general ideas"! There are millions of topics on Wikipedia (and tens of thousands relating to Brazil), and to list a very, very, very small selection of them on context-free alphabetical lists and pretend that's inherently useful is utterly absurd. " lists of basic topics" in that quote goes to Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines, which provide organization and sometimes descriptions about articles someone may be looking for, much better than indices! Reywas92 Talk 02:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't find it absurd that an encyclopedia has an index of topics that is in alphabetical order. Different people approach finding information in different ways. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 14:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, you're looking for Salvador, Bahia, the fourth largest city in Brazil? Oh too bad, this shitty index doesn't have it, just like it doesn't have the other 30,000 Brazil-related articles. This is pointless and unmanageable, and quoting here, "This index is so incomplete that the harm it does in misleading readers far outweighs any conceivable benefit it might still provide." Reywas92 Talk 18:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is a growing theme with these types of articles. See: India, Pakistan, China and Romania. In fact every index article for every country should be nominated as well. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
You are proposing the equivalent of ripping the index out of an encyclopedia one page at a time! SailingInABathTub ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a WP:PAPER encyclopedia. The equivalent of an index on WP is the search bar and category system. Dronebogus ( talk) 15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
No, the equivalent of an index on Wikipedia is the index. Not being a paper encyclopedia allows Wikipedia to have additional context specific indices that aid in finding related topics. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 16:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
If I had no idea the index existed until now then maybe it’s not actually that useful to readers. Many times I’ve seen keep voters without strong arguments rely on WP:ITSUSEFUL without stating why, or use the increasingly meaningless citation of WP:LISTPURP-“navigational” as a more “professional” sounding substitute. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm proposing some consistency across the whole site. Either every country has a relative index article, or none should. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I assume you mean that Either every country should have a relative index article, or none should. Some forms of consistency cannot be forced, or there would be no encyclopedia. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Could the purpose of this article be achieved through a category alone? Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 02:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Maybe if the category system was not so cluttered with miscategorisations and looped categories. As it stands, not very well. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The topic is far too wide in scope for this to be anything but hopelessly incomplete, thus serving no useful navigational purpose. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per Nom and User:Reywas92. This is not useful and woefully misleading if the number above is correct. While a discussion "somewhere" might be a good thing, and someone can initiate this, it does not solve this issue. As far as I am aware we do not keep an article at AFD because other articles also need deleting. -- Otr500 ( talk) 14:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comments: @ Ajf773: I agree and think listing a minuscule number of articles does not make this "useful" or anywhere near a “navigational” aid per @ Dronebogus:. -- Otr500 ( talk) 14:30, 10 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Zoey Albert

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

Total lack of notability, e.g. her role on "La suerte de Loli" was in one episode only, and received no attention. Of the 5 sources, only IMDb (which is user-generated and thus does nothing to establish notability) is about her, the other 4 don't even mention her(!). Looking for better sources produces nothing usable at all. Fram ( talk) 15:56, 2 December 2021 (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 2021 Minneapolis mayoral election. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Sheila June Nezhad

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated notability claim is having been a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city. As always, this is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL #2 -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one -- but there's no indication here that she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of a political candidacy.
And as for the sourcing, there are four run of the mill hits of local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate for mayor of anywhere can always show, one hit from a local news blog, one from an advocacy organization that isn't a media outlet, and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on a podcast. Which means that three of the seven footnotes aren't WP:GNG-worthy support for notability at all, and the other four aren't nearly enough to establish that her non-winning candidacy was more special than everybody else's non-winning candidacies. Bearcat ( talk) 12:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:42, 2 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Skin Salveation

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

Appears to be an unremarkable company, failing WP:NCORP. I could not find any more independent coverage than the cited Northumberland Gazette piece (which reads mostly like a press release, perhaps not entirely independent) and a passing mention in this Guardian article. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Skin Salveation was a very small company for one year between 2003 and 2004; thereafter it became a very small company called Dermasalve sciences ltd. until 2006, when it became a very small company called dermasalve ltd, which went broke in 2012, putting all four of its employees out of a job. The current article links to a company 'skin salve' whose address returns nothing from Companies house, and whose name is equally fruitless. Kompass list them as employing 0-9 employees. This is only one step up from one-person-and-a-web-page. Elemimele ( talk) 21:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This company lacks significant notability. TH1980 ( talk) 03:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No indication of notability or pass of WP:NORG. nearlyevil 665 06:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP, no references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 14:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lacks SIGCOV to warrant inclusion as per NCORP. VirenRaval89 ( talk) 12:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Ruda Real

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

Singer who died young. No references and I cant find any trace of what is claimed to be his famous song "Bounce Ya on My Pole". Rathfelder ( talk) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Barrio Planta Project

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

The article is about a non-profit organization that teaches people who to surf and do hip-hop dancing. So it has to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't since all the references in the article are either primary, dead links, or extremely coverage. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would help it pass WP:NORG either. Not surprising really considering what it is. Maybe other people can find something workable for notability though. I'm no expert on Nicaraguan surfing/hip-hop "schools." Adamant1 ( talk) 14:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

American International School of Conakry

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

The article has had a notability template on it since 2016, all the references in it are primary, and I was unable to find anything to help with notability when I looked. Therefore, from what I can tell this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG Adamant1 ( talk) 14:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No coverage, or really anything that could establish nobility. Google returns social media pages, wiki mirrors, lists/indexes, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJoeBee ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Shawna Elizabeth

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

The subject appears to have requested deletion [13]. The current references are interviews and blogs. I looked for better ones and didn't find anything useful. Cheers, gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Mayer DeRoy

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Souces are insubstantive and routine local announcements. Reywas92 Talk 14:11, 2 December 2021 (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 deleted by HJ Mitchell (non-admin closure) – The Grid ( talk) 15:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Go Fish Animation

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

Empty article, should probably be written in Sandbox before being published. DirkJandeGeer ( щи) 13:47, 2 December 2021 (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 deleted by HJ Mitchell. (non-admin closure) – The Grid ( talk) 15:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Animals United 2: The Chilldown

Animals United 2: The Chilldown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is an empty article, and the user seems to have created quite a few empty articles DirkJandeGeer ( щи) 13:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that he's not yet suitable notable. Star Mississippi 03:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Laith Alattar

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

Previously deleted via PROD but subsequently restored. Alattar is a non-notable musician; he fails the WP:MUSICBIO criteria and the GNG. A WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage: only trivial mentions of various performances at local festivals, etc. It appears (although I'm not entirely certain) that he's also a psychologist in the employ of the Social Security Administration, but he doesn't seem to have garnered any more notability from that role than from his musical career. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete, I tried to find anything truly significant, but there really isn't much. Here is his IMDb page, but it just looks depressing, Here is his Linkedin profile, but again there really isn't anything much that makes him special. He does have a YouTube channel with nearly 11k subscribers, but still 11k subscribers is a miniscule amount, and doesn't really contribute much to notability. Fairfax Times did mention him here however that talks more about the event rather than Alattar's life and playing. He does participate in a couple events, like the SHIN-DC "Comospolitian Journey to Greek" and this, but again those aren't that big of an event. The 2nd event I stated might also explain whatever this is. Finally, he is a contributor of this book, which seems to be pretty significant. However, all of these are either a. Insignificant or contribute little to no notability at all or b. Only passing mentions. So while Alattar seems to be a smart and interesting person, just not notable enough for his own article. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA ( talk) 03:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment if this discussion does result in a keep, then the article needs to expand more on his psychology studies and work, he seems to also be philosophical. Again, still, I think the article should be deleted. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA ( talk) 04:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per RandomEditorAAA. All sources are neither independent nor significant enough for the subject to be notable. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 20:11, 10 December 2021 (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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Punjab Lok Congress

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

I earlier proposed this article for deletion but the prod tag was deleted by user Curbon7 with a reason that "contesting PROD; party holds a seat in a parliament" which is incorrect because as per this list on the official Punjab Government site Punjab Lok Congress does not hold any seat in the Punjab Legislative Assembly. I tried to reach Curbon7 but they did not reply to my message. The party was founded just 2-3 weeks ago and has not yet participated in any elections. It was in the news due to its founder who is a notable figure otherwise there is no independent coverage. IMO the article should be deleted or merged with its founder's article. Thanks 1.23.212.76 ( talk) 11:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Pretty tough, this one. The party is a split of the Indian National Congress; the split occurred due to a lot of politics involving Amarinder Singh, the founder of the new party, and until a month ago the Punjab Chief Minister. I'd not use the Punjab Vidhan Sabha table in any case; the Anti-defection Law means that sitting MLAs won't risk joining the party just yet, unless it's a big split, especially given the murky political situation in Punjab - elections are due there in 3 months. The split itself recieved a lot of attention for a week or so across India, and as a result I am thinking, without running a BEFORE search, that the party passes the GNG. NCORP (a higher bar) is the criterion that applies (though I feel it already might meet it - not 100% sure though, as I haven't run a check), that said, and given that not much time has passed since the split (and I am getting the idea that it is a major split), I cannot definitively say if WP:LASTING is met yet. For now, I'd suggest keeping the article until the election is done; we'll have a definite idea of whether the party meets NCORP and has LASTING notability by then. Java Hurricane 15:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    And if it gets deleted now, surely someone will notice the red link / absence of link on 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election and just start it all over again. If the party is really going to have candidates for every seat, they'll get enough news coverage between now and March to be independent of the founder, and merging the article into Amarinder Singh would only have served to introduce a lot of chaos there. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
NCORP is an inappropriate standard here, WP:NONPROFIT is the correct standard to apply. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 06:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Substantial, independent reliable source coverage separate from the party founder readily available. Satisfies EVENT and the GNG. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 06:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:56, 2 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Major Surender Dahiya

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

No indication of notability. Appears to fail GNG too Gbawden ( talk) 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Apprears to be a WP:BLP that fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG as there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Only sourced parts of the article are the promotion dates. A few awards, but nothing that would reach WP:ANYBIO#1. Military service seems non-notable. The major contributor seems to be an WP:SPA with a name ( User:MajorSurenderDahiya) that raises concern of WP:COI/ WP:AUTOBIO. The page history is weird because the user has a redirect from his talk page to the article. I'd be also content with draftify. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Ljleppan Why will you be content with draftify? Do you believe he is notable or will be notable in 6 months (when the drafts get deleted)? On what basis do you believe that? Venkat TL ( talk) 07:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Venkat TL: Thanks for asking for clarification, I see now that my wording was... less than clear. What I was after is essentially this: It's possible I would have missed some references (e.g. either offline and/or Indic language sources), so if someone jumps in with a claim along the lines of "he's notable, I just can't find the references right now" I'd be personally fine with draftifying to give them time to work in the draft space, rather than outright nuking it. But absent any such claims (and a willing editor to find and add the required references) this should be deleted. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for clarifying. I thought you had seen something convincing already. For now I am not seeing anything extra ordinary. The article is a run of the mill military officer and seems to be created for self promotion. Such articles should be speedily deleted, draftifying is not suggested. If something important happens in future, they can be recreated with reliable sources. Venkat TL ( talk) 08:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC also apparent WP:AUTO breach. Mztourist ( talk) 05:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No major award or post held. No coverage in reliable media. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BIO Venkat TL ( talk) 07:40, 3 December 2021 (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 Moot. This is now a disambiguation page and no longer an article. If this change does not stick, the article can be renominated for deletion. Sandstein 17:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Space folding

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

I've prodded this recently created article (2020 vintage) with " This is basically a poorly referenced fork of Hyperspace which has recently been rewritten. I propose a WP:SOFTDELETE and redirecting this there. While I could be bold and redirect this myself, I dislike stealthy deletions by redirecting; hence the PROD. If the PROD reviewer agrees with me, please just redirect this as proposed. If not, we can discuss this at AfD.". It was deprodded by User:Artw with "Removed prod - is clearly not a fork of Hyperspace. Other grounds may remain but should probably be dealt with at AfD.". I'll also ping User:Mark McWire who has been editing the article. Speaking as the editor who recently wrote GA space travel in science fiction, cleaned up/rewrote hyperspace, and with Mark and User:Daranios also cleaned up Warp drive (not finished yet), I have to say repeat that "space folding" should be just a redirect, preferably to "hyperspace", where this topic is discussed (or maybe to "warp drive", where it is also mentioned). The current "space folding" article is just a WP:SYNTH list of random examples of works that used this term, the old WP:FANCRUFTY bad style that we are now slowly removing from articles, transforming such listicles into the encyclopedic style overviews, as seen in RS like the ones seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. In my review of the sources I've noticed that the concept of space folding is mentioned occasionally in passing, but only as an explanation of more popular concepts of hyperspace or warp drive. The concept is not indexed in the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction nor does it even appear at all in the [15] The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and other sources mention it in passing (if at all). Given the low quality of referencing currently in the article (ex. this Washington Post article that does not even mention the concept, and most other sources cited also fail this - probably because they were merged from semi-relevant articles like wormholes in fiction, based on edit history and talk page notices I see... although I don't understand why this was merged here at all) I think a redirect without merging is the most SOFTDELETish way of dealing with this I can imagine. PS. If it wasn't clear, the topic also fails WP:GNG. PPS. I should also mention that the topic of "space folding" seems to exist in sciences (math/physics/chemistry?), but the article here has no mention of this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) PPS. I double-checked other reference works: Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - not in the index; Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction - not mentioned anywhere in the body; The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - ditto; The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - still nothing; Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - guess what, nothing. The new Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia seems to use the word fold when describing the concept of a warp drive, that's about the most relevant usage I could find.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I would put the term together with wormholes in fiction, if we decide to delete the entire article. The existence of hyperspace is not necessary for space folding and there are examples, such as Event Horizon, where hyperspace does not exist in the story, but space folding as an fictional concept. In contrast, almost all fictitious wormholes work via space folding and real Wormholes descripted as connection in space via space-time folding. The example of Event Horizon should be adopted in any new location, as the principle of space folding is clearly explained and shown in the film. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Why wormholes and not warp drive? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Because in for example Star Trek, space folding is a separate concept. While warp drive is an everyday technology, at least in representation in the franchise, space folding is something very rare. A technology that is difficult to achieve and that is superior to warp drive. Physically, both are based on different approaches. If you were to mix the two articles, you would have to explain why space folding is part of the lemma "warp drive". And at the same time, all sources for the Star Trek franchise say that warp drive and space folding are two different things. It would be an internal contradiction. There are some intersections between warp drive, space folding, wormholes and hyperspace. But there remain four basic concepts that are based on different physical and hypothetical approaches. In the case of wormholes, there is at least the folding of space-time. We can argue that space folding is only a synonym for space-time folding. An abbreviated or simplified version of this term, so to speak. If anyone could prove this interpretation with a source, it would even be worth considering redirecting the lemma to the general theory of relativity. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 09:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Also, these sources link space folding to wormholes: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Daranios ( talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
We could mention something in wormholes in fiction article, sure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand or merge to wormholes in fiction and disambiguate. First, I agree with Mark McWire. The sources about A Wrinkle in Time and the space.com article link the concept to wormholes, as Stephen Hawking seems to have done, if this site is to be believed; the Grazier article also distinguishes space folding from hyperspace, so we should not merge there. The idea I have in my mind from Dune does not fit to Deep Space 9 style wormholes, so merging to wormholes in fiction is not a perfect fit; it's a shame that p. 205 of the Grazier article is not visible, that might change or reinforce the case for merge. So based on what I've seen of secondary sources this alone does not need a separate article, a merge would be fine for me. If more sources (again, what's there on p.205?) would be found, I am happy to change my opinion.
I also came upon the concept in science (and science-fiction) which the nominator already mentioned: Here, and more clearly here, p. 236, space folding refers to space curvature due to gravity, which if, as a sci-fi concept, artificially induced, could significantly shorten space travel times, but not make them instantaneous. So if we take that into account, we could keep this as a stand-alone article discussing both concepts and their differences (and possibly more from maths, etc.). Or make this a disambiguation page and adapt what we have into wormholes in fiction, and refer for the other part to, I guess, General relativity. Daranios ( talk) 11:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
IF someone writes about the real-science concepts, arguably some small 'in fiction' section could exist. But right now we have only the 'in ficition' content, and badly written/referenced at that. WP:TNT case, I am afraid - but if someone is motivated to fix this, go ahead. However, in the current form, a redirect (I am fine with 'wormholes in ficiton' instead of 'hyperspace' as the target) is the best outcome for the read, who should not be served this messy, OR-ish and GNG-failing topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
If something is called a wrinkle in space or folded space, when the descriptions match, hardly seem original research to me. We have two books (and a very short mention in a magazine article) talking about the concept in A Wrinkle in Time. We have a book about the concept in Dune. That does not seem to fit WP:TNT to me. I've now seen that p. 203 of the Dune source directly links the scientific concept of space folding with the sci-fi concept of instantaneous travel via folded space. And AfD is not clean-up, so I think the fact that we could write a reasonable article fullfilling WP:GNG is enough to neither delete nor redirect without merging this article. Daranios ( talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
As far descriptions matching, thi is an argument for redirecting this to warp drive, which is all about warping/folding space. And considering the current article has not a byte about real science that may be related to this, yes, TNT very much applies. There is nothing valuable or salvageable in the our poorly referenced plot summary that is nothing but a poor listicle of 'this term is used in works A, B and C'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
But the sources still link our kind of space folding here to wormholes, not warp drive. And we do cover fictional concepts, as well as fictional treatments of real concepts, with "Are there secondary sources about it?" being our main criterion. So I don't see what we have as worthless.
Otherwise this topic is getting more and more interesting every time I look: I actually think Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia gets it wrong when comparing our "fold space like a paper" to Star Trek's warp drive/the Alcubierre drive, if other sources about the warp drive are to be believed. It seems to me we are dealing with a number of separate ideas, all linked by "the shape of space is changed" (and therefore sometimes all referred to as folded space/space folding), but distinct:
1) General relativity gives us the scientific concept that space can be curved by gravity.
2) Then on the one end of the spectrum of sci-fi concepts we have the warp drive, which creates a comparatively small bubble of space, which is driven through the rest of space by a density gradient of space.
3) Next we have the compression of space as described in That's Weird!, where a real distance remains. And which would impact the whole route, as compared to the localized warp bubble.
4) A more extreme version of that would be wormholes in the style of DS9 and, if I remember correctly, Hawking's Illustrated A Brief History of Time where a corridor of short but still tangible distance branches out from normal space.
5) And lastly the most extreme version, like the tesseract in A Wrinkle in Time or the (somewhat mystifying) technology of Dune, where the distance between two widely separate points in space is reduced to zero. Which is what the article currently talks about. (I think I remember that Foundation also had such instantaneous travel, but with a very brief explanation of the technology which may or may not fit here.)
Plenty to write about, but I am still not completely sure if it were best to cover that all under Space folding with links to more detailed articles where they exist, or make it a pure disambig page and fitting the various concepts sometimes called space folding into other articles. Daranios ( talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The first problem which some folks keep ignoring here is that the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics related to stuff like Folding (chemistry). Which has totally zero in common with the usage in sf literature. The latter - second problem - is inconsistent but more or less a synonym for the concepts of space warp, i.e. warp drive. Which is also related to wormhole travel, and that is not too far from hyperspace. It's all variations on the same 'technobabblish but imaginable way to travel at FTL speeds'. While there seem to be sources that support having separate articles about hyperspace, warp drive and wormholes in fiction, there is still next to zero about space folding, which is a poorly defined synonym for the above. Since space folding and space warping are more or less the same, I still strongly say "redirect". At best, this can be mentioned as a rare, alternate name. If it was something significant, it would be mentioned in one or more of sf encyclopedias, which I've reviewed and which not only don't have a dedicated entry on it, but don't even use the term in passing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how these variations are not conceptually different. "the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics": So there are more sources using the term than those that we have discussed. That does not seem to me an argument for deletion, but rather that WP:GNG is not the major problem. But yeah, I see, it's the same term applied to different concepts. So it's one more argument for making this a (somewhat extended, as it probably needs sources to make it clear) disambiguation page. That's a solution I would be fine with, as I've described. Daranios ( talk) 20:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - The fusion of space folding with hyperspace would be Wikipedia:No original research according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no direct connection. Both are simply speculative scientific concepts that are used in science fiction as drive concepts for faster-than-light-movement. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 12:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
There are basically four major concepts in science fiction for flying faster than the speed of light:
    • A) You change to a fictitious hyperspace / subspace / underspace, in which other physical laws apply, where the speed of light does not represent a natural limit of movement.
    • B) You changes the space-time in such a way that the distance between the starting point and the target point becomes smaller, so that the space ship does not have to fly faster than the light. That is the basic principle of folding the space. You can in extreme cases fold the space so that the start and finish are in the same position at the same time and you cover the distance instantaneously. This is the basic principle of most of the so-called jump drives.
    • C) You connect two points of space-time through a tunnel and take a shortcut. That's the basic for most fictional wormholes or hyperspace/subspace/transwarp tunnels/corridors/conduits or slipstream drives. This is the only concept that can be merged with hyperspace, since there are actually parallels here.
    • D) You build a bubble around the spaceship that is separated from normal space-time, in a kind of own little universe and move this bubble through space. Since the limit of the speed of light only applies to energy and matter, a spaceship can move faster in this way. This is the basic principle that describes the warp drive and similar concepts.
All of these concepts have their right to exist in Wikipedia. -- Mark McWire ( talk)
IMHO D) is just a mix of A and B. Star Trek's warp drive seems to involve creating a hyperspace-bubble and having it interact with our reality in a weird way, kind of like greasing the wheels to make them roll faster. But traditionally space warp, space fold are related. And for some writers hyperspace just means something that allows warping/folding, fo others it's the pace inside the wormholes, etc. It's all variations of technobabble. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Let's just look at it from a real scientific point of view. Wormholes and warp bubbles are two different possible solutions to the field equations from general relativity. Both concepts exist independently of each other. Space folding is another independent solution, but sometimes referred to wormholes. Hyperspace does not exist in current physics. It is a hypothetical concept that is discussed in real science, but which has no use to solute any theoretical problem. It's a world outside of our universe. That science fiction mixes up these concepts is another problem. The warp drive from Star Trek is not a pure warp bubble concept, as it results from the general theory of relativity. As you said, it's a mixture of subspace (hyperspace) and space warp. When it comes to space folding, things get complicated. It is a concept that exists in real science, namely as a prerequisite for using wormholes. Because without folded space, a wormhole is useless, since the flight through the wormhole would be just as far as the flight through normal space. Only when a wormhole connects two distant points in a folded space-time can it create a shorter path. In science fiction, especially in Star Trek, space folding is treated as a separate entity. Mostly in connection with instant travel methods. While the flight through a wormhole takes finite time, the flight through space folding is timeless. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 10:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It would be no problem for me to accept a redirect to Warp drive. Then in the article warp drive it needs its own subsection for space folding and there it is explained that it is a similar concept to space warp, but that it is used differently in the SF. Then we can cite the examples from Star Trek, in which space folding is presented as a physical concept superior to the warp drive that enables instant journeys that are not possible with the warp drive. For example coaxial warp drive and spatial trajector from Series Voyager. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 11:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Overall I agree, which is why I think redirecting (and possibly adding a section to be mostly written from scratch as I do stand by my view that next to nothing in the current plot summary article has value) to either warp drive or wormholes is superior to hyperspace. Indeed, hyperspace is 100% fiction, whereas warp drive and even more so, wormholes, are grounded in some real sciences. My point is that any discussion of space folding has to go beyond listing a few examples of fictional works that used this term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article age has nothing to do with it. It could be improved. Super ( talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    With what sources? I did an extensive lit review and concluded there are no in-depth secondary sources on this topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    For the non-fictional part, how about with the already mentioned Philosophical Essays p. 46 (+p. 37, footnote 24) and That's Weird! p. 236, and for marrying with the sci-fi concept, The Science of Dune p. 203 (and 199)? (And did I mention I am wondering what's on p. 205 of that source? ;-) Daranios ( talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    The first source talks about this concept is science, which is not covered in our article at all. We do, however, have an article about Minkowski space, a related scientific concept that is mentioned by the source; it seems that the author of that book is using the term "space folding" to explain Minkowski space and related concepts. The second study seems the same but less focused on the term, which seems to be used just once in passing. The last source seems more of the same. Space folding, in this case, is a simple grammatical construction, just like space warp/space warping. In the context of space travel, it can be mentioned as a synonym to space warp, or maybe wormholes. We don't need an article that just lists 'works that use the term space folding instead of space warping' when both refer to the same concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • comment Not a fork. Would agree that there needs to be more broad 3rd party coverage of the concept as a whole to supplement specific examples. Artw ( talk) 15:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree with Mark McWire's taxonomy of fictional space travel, but have no particular opinion on how those ought to be best represented in Wikipedia. I appreciate the collaborative spirit here, and suggest if fictional AfDs keep going this way we might want to revisit the WP:PEREN topic of AfDeletion -> AfDiscussion. Jclemens ( talk) 21:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Fusion with Space travel in fiction - I suggest to move the actual content to this main article and redirect space folding like slipstream (science fiction) to this main article. I suggest also merge wormholes in fiction with space travel in fiction. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 11:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I once made a push and converted the article into a disambiguation and moved the former content to Space travel in fiction. There it can then be refined according to the sources. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • We should move the discussion to Talk:Space travel in science fiction‎ and close this topic. If all people are fine with this suggestion. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 11:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Closing ?

Can we closing this nomination, since the article now massivly edited and revamped into a disambiguation? -- Mark McWire ( talk) 11:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Ping Artw, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Jclemens, Daranios, Super 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Quil Lemons

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

I do not see how any of this. shows notability, under WP:creative of any other guideline. The first person to photograph a lead image for Vanity Fa r is not necessarily notable, all the more so the first person of any particular group.

All 3 refs are promotional interviews, where he says what he pleases. The similarities between them indicate the same likely PR source--nothing in any one of them is reliable, let alone for ablp.

One of the refs does refer to an item in a show at MOMA--if he isis the permaenent collection, we would be notable. Perhaps that can be shown. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Article contains reliable sources that should not be erroneously classified as promotional, and a Google search turns up many more readily available RSes. Gamaliel ( talk) 15:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Many reliable sources can be found through Google search such as NYTimes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Vanity Fair, Vogue etc. Article has improvement opportunities. Mommmyy ( talk) 20:45, 2 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Little Green Store, Arkansas

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

I can find basically nothing about this place - nothing useful in newspapers.com, Google books that I could find, google search is pretty much just autogenerated crap scraped from GNIS, and there's no evidence that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 2 December 2021 (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 NISA Nation. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Deportivo Lake Mary

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. JBchrch talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete SemiProfessional leagues are not notable. dashiellx ( talk) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Dashiellx: this is a club, not a league - and anyway your statement is factually incorrect. Giant Snowman 19:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ GiantSnowman: - In my brevity I was not clear. I do not believe teams that play in semi-professional leagues are notable only when relying upon one section of WP:NFOOTY exclusively. I should have been more clear. Perhaps next time instead of leaving a passive aggressive comment you can link to a policy, etc... showing how I'm misunderstanding notability and/or WP:NFOOTY. dashiellx ( talk) 21:02, 2 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Warwick, Washington

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

A station on a now-abandoned SP&S rail line, and in this case I was fortunate enough to find two older maps, one from 1913 and the other from 1936, which make it clear that there was never a town here, a view ratified by later aerials and topos. There's just no notability here. Mangoe ( talk) 05:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Changed to Delete There appears to be enough for an article to exist. It was a community with enough importance for a railroad stop and a post office. The article does need improvements. Super ( talk) 06:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
No, that's not how it worked. Stations without towns were common (and in a sense are even more so now). Mangoe ( talk) 15:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I would also note that there's no concept of "importance" in our notability guidelines. WP:GEOLAND requires either legal recognition or significant coverage to meet GNG. Which of those criteria is this !vote based on? – dlthewave ☎ 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
What do you mean by "towns get articles anyway"? – dlthewave ☎ 14:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND which requires either legal recognition or GNG-level SIGCOV. – dlthewave ☎ 16:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - GNIS spam. Not a WP:GNG pass, no legal recognition. Post offices do not confer legal recognition - they can be mobile, they can be in stores, they can be in stations, they need not be within a community. This idea that Wikipedia hosts articles on places that literally no encyclopaedic article can be written about needs to die: Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and does not just include directory listings as articles. FOARP ( talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks for the info User:FOARPon post offices. I thought they had to be based in a city or town. Super ( talk) 21:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Per consensus. Except for nominator, all respondents indicate reasons to keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Loved (film)

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

Non-notable indie movie from 1997. Fails WP:NFILM on all counts. No references. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Incorrect on all counts. The notability of the players is not enough, per Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. There weren't notable "sources" reviewing it - there was one notable source, Variety. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:NFILM specifies that a film that fails the other criteria has to win a "major" award. Debatable whether the ISAs are "major" (I doubt it) but it any case, it didn't win. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (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 as a confirmed (and reportedly admitted) hoax. RL0919 ( talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

William Henry Farrow

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

Hoax article according to admission on Twitter by supposed creator. No reliable sources found. The first source to the Durham book is a real book but a Google Book search inside has no results for "Farrow" or "synesthesia". The second source The Lower Canada Journal of Medicine appears to be a bogus non-existent journal? A full-text search of Internet Archive finds nothing for a William Henry Farrow of this type.

If this is determined to be a hoax, it would be the third oldest hoax in Wikipedia history at 15 years and > 11 months. -- Green C 04:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I've requested a copy of the book through my library. May take a couple of weeks to get it. Getting my hands on the book would make this an open and shut case, one way or another. -- rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 05:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
An abridged copy and full copy is online with 'search inside'. As a test search for "Durham", it will not show all results but does say how many results (87). The words "farrow" or "synesthesia" have 0 results. Search on "375" shows it to be the first page of a chapter (in the TOC), but the citation is for "374–376" meaning it crosses a chapter boundary which is very odd. You might say 374 is a blank page, but it's not, there is content there according to the index when searching on "374". So we have a citation that includes the last page of a chapter the first two pages of the next chapter. -- Green C 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Yeah, and I hadn't seen the reference to the tweet. I'm still interested in getting the book, but as I said in my amended comment, this page shouldn't exist, even if it weren't a hoax. rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 17:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Let's see if more information can be provided by rsjaffe before deletion occurs. Super ( talk) 06:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Would that single book even qualify as meeting WP:GNG? I guess being the first person (or one of the first people) to ever describe synesthesia could potentially qualify for criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO and so would make WP:GNG unnecessary, but we would at least need a source confirming that this is actually true. Mlb96 ( talk) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but perhaps it relates to this person and article started from scratch? -- CappellsFromSkelmersdale ( talk) 11:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I've blocked CappellsFromSkelmersdale as NOTHERE. Fences& Windows 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. The article creator, André Babyn, has admitted the hoax on Twitter as noted by the nominator. His first edit as Babynator set the tone for his brief history of contributions. On the specifics of the article, the journal Lower Canada Journal of Medicine never existed and no article by that title is in literature databases. Farrow's existence is not verifiable and there is no need to wait for rsjaffe's book to arrive - if he existed then he would surely appear somewhere else in the historical record and this is an admitted hoax with information that is assuredly false. I don't understand why CappellsFromSkelmersdale thinks finding a photo of a British WWI captain by another similar name means we should keep an article about a supposed doctor who died well before that war began. Trying to pretend we were not duped makes us look even sillier. Fences& Windows 14:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • delete Clear hoax. Due to longevity, should be noted somewhere but there's no reason to keep an article here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The twitter account claiming to be the original author says it is a hoax. It's clear that no other references to the subject person exist. It's clear that the original author fabricated the existence of a journal cited in the article. The twitter account claims that the book reference is also fabricated. We could wait, but it seems extremely unlikely. And even if the book turns up, why are there no other references? I would probably still vote delete. Chris vLS ( talk) 15:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and send to the hoax museum. Per all above. wizzito | say hello! 23:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Purely a hoax. VirenRaval89 ( talk) 12:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Confirmed hoax Got my hands on the book. No mention of synesthesia or Farrow. Lord Durham did suffer from severe "attacks in the head", which sound like migraines, and one was described in the referred pages, but definitely no synesthesia. Since there was a reference in the hoax, I thought it best to check that reference before listing this as a hoax. -- rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 19:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Well sorry you went through all that trouble but glad you went the extra mile to verify the third oldest hoax. If the twitter user had a waited just a few more months to reveal, they could have claimed a gold medal for oldest hoax in history. -- Green C 19:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I'm not sorry. I felt like checking it because 1) I was curious, 2) wikipedia tends to be "blind" to written sources, as opposed to on-line sources, so I thought it was appropriate to read it, and 3) before enshrining something as a hoax, I felt it was appropriate to make sure we weren't being fooled by a hoax hoax, as improbable as that may seem. rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 20:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
A hoax-hoax, the mind reels. Hopefully we don't start seeing those. -- Green C 20:15, 8 December 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Chinese Coal Mine, Texas

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

Both sources used are unreliable. It's a bit hard to look for because the article isn't clear if it's in Jeff Davis on Bandera County, and it doesn't seem to have a GNIS entry. Newspapers.com is just giving me results for coal mines in China, and searching in other locations doesn't bring up anything that indicates that this meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems to place that attracts people who explore these things. Let's see if more information can be found and the article improved. Super ( talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The only sources for this are blogs and or user-submitted websites, which can't even really agree on where this is supposed to be. No joy with Google or my university database. Fails notability. - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Ghost towns can be notable if they had legal recognition or significant coverage in the past, but this one had neither. It's not even clear that there was a "town" of any sort here. – dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Agree with dlthewave. This really is just a result of the practise on Wikipedia of labelling every location that you have a source saying was once a "populated place" that is obviously not populated now a "ghost town". The ghosttowns.com source, which is not reliable since it is user-generated content, notably doesn't say it was ever actually a community of any sort - from the description it is an abandoned, completely un-notable mine.
This tendency to label all these places "ghost towns" has led to counties, particularly in California (e.g., Nevada county), which there are more "ghost town" articles for on Wikipedia than there are articles for inhabited locations. A quick review shows nearly all of these were likely mines, camps, fords, bridges, farms, ranches, stations etc. etc. etc.
In reality, even in places that saw a gold rush or whatever, there should not be more than a few "ghost town" articles for each US county since very few places with legal recognition totally disappeared, and the ones that weren't legally recognised rarely pass WP:GNG. FOARP ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Central African Republic–Turkey relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. No state visits, embassies nor agreements. Trade is miniscule at less than USD6 million a year. The fact that Turkey donated some computers says little of notable relations. LibStar ( talk) 02:49, 2 December 2021 (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 Revert to page on BBC series since no one else wants to do the legwork. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hollywood Science

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

Page is a total mess. It refers to two different unrelated shows of the same name, neither of which seems notable on its own per Wikipedia:Notability (television). At some point it also got hijacked to be about the concept of fake science in the media. Suggest some WP:TNT here if any of this is to be kept. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is a lack of reliable sources cited. Further, some specifics are incoherent to the main topic of the subject. Multi7001 ( talk) 02:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but decide what the article is supposed to be about. We have three different things here: two television series' and a concept. All three might be independently notable, and the current article contains some useable material on two of them. AfD deletion is supposed to be for things where there is no salvageable content, or no notability. On the subject of "Hollywood science" in the sense of science perverted for film effect, there are several books on exactly that subject, for example Sidney Perkowitz "Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, and the end of the world" [21]. The subject is almost certainly notable and riddled with reliable sources. Meanwhile the BBC series has been selected by the Open University as the subject of a free learning resource [22] which is an independent indication of notability, and very in-depth, and the royal society of chemistry (RSC) held a lecture about the series [23], again independent and in-depth. Google is your friend. It's not hard to find sources for these. I haven't gone on to try the National Geographic series, so I'm not commenting on that one. Elemimele ( talk) 07:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with others. Lets sort it all out. Super ( talk) 13:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and revert to solely about the BBC/OU series. If the Nat Geographic series can be shown to be independently notable then that should be a separate page. On the other hand, if this AfD fails to keep as is, then repurpose to a broad concept article since that is unarguably notable. Spinning Spark 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Elemimele: @ Supercopone: @ Spinningspark: So are any of you going to do the heavy lifting? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 are valid sourcing concerns, but there also appears to be consensus that those concerns have been addressed, at least as far as being BLP sufficient. While there are concerns about improving the article, there is a consensus that the subject is notable and issues can be addressed editorially. Star Mississippi 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Ove von Spaeth

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

Apparently recreated after the first deletion. All of the references are simply works by the author; I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage about the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • It doesn't fit G4, since the current version was started from scratch, rather than being reposted. Geschichte ( talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm the major contributor to this article. I don't understand why you can't find reliable sources. A lot of the sources are referenced from major Danish printed newspapers. Jyllands-Posten, Kristeligt Dagblad Berlingske Tidende ect. I know it can be hard to find the articles, since we talk about print media from the early 2000. but infomedia.dk can help you (though it is behind a paywall) aza ( talk) 23:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. I'm leaning keep, since I can confirm that the news outlets mentioned by Aza are reliable. If they indeed covered Spaeth's work, the article topic is viable. However, it
1) ditch the title "independent scholar"
2) chuck out all primary sources (use it to make a Selected bibliography section instead).
3) rewrite to focus on the reception. What do they write about Spaeth? No anonymous critics please, state the outlet they wrote for and how they assessed his work. Summarize in the lead which one of his books caused a media ruckus.
4) also focus on sources that are about Ove von Spaeth. Geschichte ( talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep More than enough sources for a keep. Not sure what is going on with the request for deletion. It could stand some work but I see nothing here to warrant anything drastic. Super ( talk) 06:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Suffiently reviewed in mainstream media at the time, assuming good faith toward offline sources. Geschichte ( talk) 13:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - adequately sourced. Ingratis ( talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Geschichte, it sounds reasonable, when I started the article back in the day I had full access to the infomedia database through my university, I don't have that anymore, so it would be a hard task for me to rewrite, try taking a look at the early version I made and see if it is more in line with Wikipedia's standards. It seems the deletion request originates from some annoyance over edits made by IP 176.23.240.36 aza ( 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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Chipokota Mwanawasa

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

Apart from being daughter to Zambian third President, I don’t see any sign of notability per WP:GNG to warrant a standalone article Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep We'll keep any article talking about a thrice-removed/12th cousin of a POTUS or UK Prime Minister whose only notability was shouting 'do you know who my cousin is?' during an arrest, but this article about a presidential daughter from Africa is not enough? The resume tone needs reduction, but once again, this is the English world Wikipedia, not just one for the 'acceptable' Western world. Nate • ( chatter) 04:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems obvious at this point. She has held key government posts.Plus her father was a former president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Has held key government posts so meets WP:BIO on that criteria. -- CappellsFromSkelmersdale ( talk) 11:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only government post that I can see is as special advisor to the President (her father). The post itself is not notable; there's a vast difference in notability of being advisor to the leader of a geo-strategically significant country with 300+ million people versus that of one of 18 million which even in subregional terms (Eastern/Southern Africa) is of middling importance when compared with South Africa, Kenya, Zim or Mozambique. Other than the pieces on the appointment/non-appointment (which in themselves do not constitute notability), the reliability of the sourcing is borderline and all are mere mentions (blogspot sourcing is certainly unreliable). There's no in-depth coverage, or passing (rather than mentions) coverage across multiple reliable sources to satisfy a generous interpretation of WP:BASIC. Searches turn up very little. In terms of commentary regarding systemic bias - if we are talking of people and issues related to the 20th Century and earlier, this is certainly more of a case in terms of online sources. But we are talking of a contemporary figure; the notion that African media reporting *today* is in the same condition as last century or even a decade ago, is utterly mistaken. I can accept in certain pockets (eg CAR, DRC, South Sudan) there are clear contemporary gaps, but Zambia is far from those circumstances. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 03:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems kinda notable and has some sort of internet coverage that I could find. HelpingWorld ( talk) 20:57, 12 December 2021 (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. Somewhere between keep and a no consensus, to be fully open. There is merit behind the keep and merge opinions, cited in policy. Which of those comes out ahead is slightly unclear, but that can be handled editorially. I imagine a possible merger and if so, how much, may change as we get further from this game, but there definitely is not a consensus to delete the content. Star Mississippi 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game

2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's not the final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, it isn't a college bowl game, it's not an all-star game, and it is not a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable. Most coverage is routine and mentions of it being Tom Brady's return to New England before the game. A month and a half later, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rockchalk 7 17 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rockchalk 7 17 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Rockchalk 7 17 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree that this is just a one-off game that does not meet SPORTSEVENT. It can be sufficiently covered at 2021 New England Patriots season, 2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, Tom Brady, and any other relevant articles. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I find this deletion rationale weak since it hinges on WP:ROUTINE. The widespread coverage beforehand is just as valid, and we all know notability is not temporary. As to continued coverage, notable games like this often don't receive continued coverage until the end of the season (see the AfD for Hail Murray). You would be challenged to find any game where that's the case from week to week because of the nature of sports reporting. Simply put, this game was impactful. It was a highly-anticipated return for Brady, promoted specifically by its broadcast company (not every game gets this), Brady became the all-time passing yardage leader and joined the 32 Team Club during the game, not to mention it was the second-most viewed SNF game ever. The article's sourcing is quite good and includes multiple national sources (a key indicator of notability, even ROUTINE says this). So, to say it should be deleted based on weak rationale like ROUTINE and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE just doesn't make sense to me. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 00:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, spike the ball and do a choreographed dance per nom lest we be infested with routine NFL games every damn season. The Patriots aren't that special (though they are coming on now). "The Return" gained absolutely no traction as a catchphrase (fumble instead). It's already in the rearview mirror. As for it being the second-most viewed SNF game ever, do the first and third have articles? Also, Brady sets new records every other game. This isn't Bradypedia. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clear pass of WP:SPORTSEVENT significant non- routine coverage leading up to the game and in its aftermath, particularly with Tom Brady setting the career passing yards record and his postgame interaction with his former head coach Bill Belichick. Easily among the most notable regular season games over the last several years. Frank Anchor 01:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment I think you might want to look at WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The majority of articles about it were from the week leading up to the game, and a few immediately after the game, but there hasn't been very much continued coverage about it since indicating (using that policy's words) a "spike in coverage". If Wikipedia existed when Joe Montana returned to San Francisco when he played for the Chiefs, that probably wouldn't qualify for an article either. This seems pretty similar to when Brett Favre returned to Green Bay or when Peyton Manning returned to Indianapolis, lots of build up the week or two leading up then the game was largely forgotten by history. And I have to pretty strongly disagree about it being "among the most notable regular season games over the last several years". Outside of Tom Brady, there wasn't very much notable about it. In regards to the record comment, records are broken and tied more often than most people realize. Hell, Patrick Mahomes tied (another) record Sunday night and there wasn't much coverage about it, now I'll admit career passing yards is more notable then things like "fastest to (milestone)" "most (stat) after ___ career games". The 2018 Rams/Chiefs game is by a large margin the most notable regular season game recently and look at everything about that game.--Rockchalk 7 17 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep as per Etzedek24 and Frank Anchor's comments (maybe not for the records being broken), but mostly for the game's strong ties to the Brady–Belichick era of New England Patriots history, which is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, dynasties in sports. I'd also suggest merging to the Brady/Belichick page, but as mentioned before, there is plenty of coverage for the game and its circumstances, which I think would be too much for a merged article to contain, especially for one game. -- WuTang94 ( talk) 02:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I do think that Brady's return is significant given the magnitude of playing against his former coach and team, as they carved a huge place in sport's history when together. I also think that such a matchup likely will not happen again, unlike Favre or Manning as mentioned by Rockchalk717. But in the likelihood of this page getting deleted, I have moved some of the significant copy surrounding the game (and not the game itself) to the Brady–Belichick era page. -- Flowerkiller1692 ( talk) 05:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • On second thought, maybe the merge target should be 2021 New England Patriots season instead. Either one of the teams' seasons is probably more capable of taking on this page's content than the Brady/Belichick page, and the game meant more to the Pats than the Bucs. I still think this page merits keeping though. -- WuTang94 ( talk) 16:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on Frank Anchor's argument. His statement that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE dictates that coverage does not need to be ongoing, is enough here, considering this game got significant coverage that isn't routine even for the biggest regular season games, especially beforehand. I don't typically think particular games should get their own article, especially regular season, but I think this one meets proper criteria. Spf121188 ( talk) 14:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the amount of coverage this particular game received. -- Mike  🗩 17:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I would re-read the article and many of the above comments. There are clearly other things this game was notable for. That is all.-- WuTang94 ( talk) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply
People still talk about The Catch or the Miracle in Motown. Does anybody, less than two month later, fondly reminisce about "the Return"? There's no WP:LASTING coverage. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I really thought initially to vote delete, but reading the article, it's very well written (likely GA-level or better) and sources clearly covered this event in enough detail to pass WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 16:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and selective Merge to Brady-Belichick era#2021–present: Brady vs. Belichick and beyond. There's certainly coverage about the game, routine or not. However, keeping it as a stand alone article in my opinion fails WP:10YEARTEST as almost all the coverage centers around the drama of Brady and Belichick rather than the game itself. Unlike other recent notable games like the Hail Murray and the 2018 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Rams game, the coverage about the game had little to do with what happened on the field, and everything to do with the Brady-Belichick relationship. That's why I think readers would be better served having this game covered in the article about the Brady-Belichick era, giving it WP:DUEWEIGHT in the context of that article. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Muboshgu. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge per Qwaiiplayer. The coverage of the game centers around the "return" of Brady and the Brady-Belichick relationship. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Actually on 2nd thought, most relevant information is already at the merge target, so delete and redirect. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Posted notice at WikiProject National Football League. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I was a bit unsure about this one before I read through the arguments presented in favor of each option, but I'm now satisfied that this article passes WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, because of the game receiving a much greater amount of coverage than most NFL games from the moment that the schedule was announced, in addition to the records that were broken by Brady as a result of it. -- Zander251 ( talk) 19:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do folks think about redirect? (And even merging anything of use)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Received coverage well beyond that of a normal football game. Satisfies WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mlb96 ( talk) 00:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, all relevant information (Brady-Belichek) is already on their respective articles. No reason to have a bunch of other cruft filling out the rest of this article. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in response to the relisting comment on redirect/merge, this is not an appropriate outcome as there is clearly enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG per my above “keep” vote and others, and “2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers - New England Patriots Game” is an unlikely search term. Frank Anchor 16:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable game for various reasons, well-cited, and well written. GNG passed and the article is a potential GA or even FA candidate. DrewieStewie ( talk) 20:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge to Brady–Belichick era. The notability of the topic itself is not the game that was played, as implied by the title of this article, but the legacy of these two men. This topic is already covered in-depth in Brady–Belichick era. This is just another footnote in a long history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, per discussion, especially Frank Anchor's comments. And, of course, Brady. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, merge/redirect to Brady–Belichick era per Gonzo_fan2007, Dissident93, Natg 19, and Qwaiiplayer. Game is only notable for its relation to the men featured in proposed target article. In 10 years, their championships together will far out WEIGH a single game played as opponents. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion should have been closed as Keep by Missvain without this relisting, per comments before the relist. Please have another reading of everyone's comments and reasoning, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • And no, the page is relevant beyond Belichick and really has little to do with him. It's about Brady and his return to play his former team (and, importantly, his former owner Robert Kraft, whose decisions were relevant in Brady leaving the Patriots) and what he accomplished while doing so. It's not about what Brady accomplished while quarterbacking the Patriots, but about the game, the fans, and the overall drama resulting in the "second most-watched broadcast of NBC Sunday Night Football in its history". Belichick is New Engand's coach and not a rival to Brady, and he is more or less tangential to the page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This is only the second relisting. Many AfDs are relisted multiple times, especially in close calls such as this. I don't need to be told to read anything for a third time, thanks. And based on your recent edits, I must ask you to stop replying to me in order to make a WP:POINT about closers reading discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Whoops, my apology, my comment was more for Missvain than you, this seems an obvious Keep from early on and could use a close reading from the closer. p.s. the last sentence of Dan's ghost was added after this comment. My answer to you above was also meant for you and for other editors who want to make an inappropriate-target merge. This is not a topic about Brady and Belichick, although they both were active participants in the game (as were many others). Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It's odd to say it's obvious when the discretion is on the closing admin. There are legit points presented here with the discussion for either keeping the article or/and merging. – The Grid ( talk) 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Just asking the closer to read through the page, and I think the discussion in this relist can add to the case for Keep. Mainly, the premise of the suggested redirect doesn't apply to this article other than for a brief mention and a link to the page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    That is for the closing admin to decide. Nothing more. Nothing less. – The Grid ( talk) 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Which is why I'm asking the closer to actually read the page and understand its discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment just want to reiterate the whole naming discussion and notability. The game that was played was not notable, i.e. the actions that occurred during the game did not make it notable, like Fail Mary, Bottlegate and 2018 NFC Championship Game. Being the 2nd most viewed SNF game or Brady setting some random record does not make the game notable. Looking at the article's current name, 2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game, the implication is the topic of the article is the game, i.e. the events that occurred during the game. However, looking closely at the sources, the topic that is notable is Brady and Belichick's history, legacies, and now rivalry. Looking at it from this perspective, Brady–Belichick era already covers this topic. This game becomes part of this topic, with the most appropriate outcome being a new section in Brady–Belichick era covering Brady and Belichick's interactions after Brady left the Patriots, which includes this game. So again, this game is notable and should be included in Wikipedia, but the topic is already covered by an existing article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Well, this article was previously titled "Tom Brady's return" before being moved to its current title. On one hand, I feel that that title was actually a better title to indicate why this game is notable, but on the other hand, as pointed out by those who supported the move, it's a bit of an ambigious title that could be confused with other "returns" that Brady has made throughout his career, such as his 2009 return from his torn ACL or his 2016 return from his Deflategate suspension. So if this article is kept (as I have already voted for it to be), maybe there should be a new discussion about a title that better demonstrates the game's notability than just having the title be the year and the teams involved in the game, but it might have to be something a little more specific than "Tom Brady's return." -- Zander251 ( talk) 17:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • (coming in riding the surf of an edit conflict) Yes, the game is notable, per 32 good sources which cover Tom Brady in relationship to this game. Brady's focus was not on any kind of rivalry with Belicheck, even if some but not all of the press played it up. A merge to the Brady-Belicheck page would be inaccurate. A mention and a link there is fine, but this article is about a noteworthy game. And the "random record" Brady achieved during the game was for the most passing yards in a career (as notable a football record as you can get, tied). Randy Kryn ( talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I disagree that the 32 references show notability for the game itself, compared to the circumstances around the game. When I look at the title of these refs, 9 of them are about Tom Brady's time with the Buccaneers or the aftermath of his leaving (e.g. "Tom Brady officially signs contract with Buccaneers", "Patriots eliminated from postseason contention for first time since 2008"). Many other refs are about the circumstances of the "return" or about the ratings (e.g. "Watch chilling moment as Patriots crowd roars for Tom Brady's return", "Tom Brady's return was the second most-watched 'Sunday Night Football' game ever on NBC"). An argument could be made that the game itself was notable for Brady becoming the NFL all-time passing leader, but we don't have an article on the game where Brees broke the previous record. There is no doubt that this article is well sourced, but this game was notable because of "The Return", which can be summarized and covered at the Brady-Belichick article. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
        • The "circumstances around the game" are part of the article about the game (the page doesn't have to be about the 60 minutes on-field play). The game is not about Brady and Belichick, not discernible rivals, and a merge to that page would be a mismerge per topic. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Zander251's theory that the page is misnamed seems to get to the heart of the differing opinions here. The page is a prominent Tom Brady page and not a page about Brady and Belicheck, and should be renamed accordingly. Makes sense. This is a well sourced page about a notable game which, by coincidence, contains Brady obtaining a notable record, which should tip a Keep. Just could be the title has to describe it better. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Just to be clear, the naming doesn't matter. The topic is what matters. The topic is notable, it's just that the topic is already sufficiently covered by another article. The argument I am making is that the topic that is notable is the relationship between Brady and Belichick, not the game that was actually played. The game should definitely be noted, but as part of the larger topic on the Brady–Belichick era. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The Brady-Belichick era ended in 2019 and is defined in the first sentence of the Brady-Belichick era. This game was played in 2021, and has nothing whatsoever to do with their mutually shared success (which is what their article is about but. again, not what this one covers). Randy Kryn ( talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It's a footnote (or a postscript) to the Brady-Belichick era. If it weren't for the extraordinary success of the B-B era, nobody would care about this game. The notability of this game flows directly and exclusively from the former. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, it should have a note, or maybe a 'See also' entrant, but that page is about something that ended, per the page lead sentence, in 2019. Randy Kryn ( talk) 17:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't understand how you can say that this game has nothing whatsoever to do with their mutually shared success. If not for the mutual connection between Brady and Belichick, this would just be a run of the mill regular season game, and this article would be speedily deleted and we would not be having this discussion. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I hate Tom Brady like any self-respecting fan, but there were just too many story lines, records, and viewership numbers with this specific game. It could easily overburden any single article about Brady or the franchises, and since Wikipedia is not constrained like a paper encyclopedia, the sources give it the notability needed to give the subject its own little corner of the internet. Ignoring notability (which is proven), it transcends a stub and people looking to rescue articles should pay more attention to the effort given here. Outdatedpizza ( talk) 11:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as article passes WP:GNG and this article is notable enough to rise above WP:NSPORT concerns. Swordman97 talk to me 02:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • For the nom's argument: theres an article here [24] that shows that the match is still in people's heads. Swordman97 talk to me 03:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is a game that was not really big like the Butt Fumble, the Tuck Rule Game, or the Beast Quake so I would recommend to delete this page. SoonerFan4life67 talk 0:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
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 Kennewick, Washington. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Vista, Washington

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

Another case where actually reading the sources would have given a different article. Once again, the Washington Place Names database calls this a "railroad station", and yes, going back through the topos and aerials shows an isolated siding and a grain elevator, which still stands in the middle of the urban sprawl that has surrounded it. It's been closed for something two decades, and is now bedecked with cell phone antennae. It's not even clear that anyone considers this a neighborhood in the city. Mangoe ( talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:33, 2 December 2021 (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. As indicated in the discussion, scientific claims do not need to be considered proven (or even validly scientific) to be appropriate article subjects, as long as they meet our notability guidelines. If the article does not accurately represent the scientific consensus on the subject, this should be resolved by editing the article content rather than deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 04:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

North Andes Plate

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

It is original research. There is no scientific consensus on the existence of this plate. Appears to be a fringe view ( WP:FRINGE) based on a 2003 paper by Bird. The references does not mention the microplate. I propose part of the content is moved and merged into Geology of Colombia. The concern is similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altiplano Plate. Mamayuco ( talk) 01:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Having been cited thousands of time does not mean that everthing in the article is correct or accepted. Geophysics have had much advance since 2003, so if the North Andes Plates would be an usefull construct it should have been noter so by other geologist working with plate tectonics. Just like Stephen Hawkings books and articles have been cites thousands of times some of his works are known to have been in error in some subjects. So, where is the validation that the North Andean Plate is indeed accepted among the plate tectonics community of Earth scientists? Mamayuco ( talk) 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Again - "Correct" and "Accepted" are NOT the metrics for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Notable" is the metric. We have an article on Phlogiston, after all. It took me ten seconds to find this article that refers to it, which has itself been cited 23 times. On the interaction of the North Andean Plate PianoDan ( talk) 15:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Can't proclaim on the topic area, but yes, correct != notable (or the inverse). And the term crops up in a sufficient number of publications [25] to show that it's present in the discourse. I do wonder why that paper by Bird (actually 2.2k cites) is not actually used as a reference, and only hangs out as the single "Further reading" item on the page. - Below a VAST and otherwise unconnected "bibliography". That article is a confusing construct... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 03:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It's certainly a concept that appears to be attracting more support with time. Analysing those Scholar results, half of the references are 2014 to the present, but a quarter of them are from the last two years. Mikenorton ( talk) 16:42, 6 December 2021 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 07:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Batteroo Boost

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

Indigogo project that garnered some controversy on YouTube for a brief period around 2015. The only in-depth coverage is from this time, most of which is from blogs closely associated with the YouTube channels that covered it, with the majority of coverage before and after being paid coverage or other consumer reports, so by my assessment fails GNG by way of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTADVOCACY. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Lot's out there if you dig. Gizmodo did and article in it. This could be a great article by adding sources. Make it less adverty. Super ( talk) 13:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Towal, Washington

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

Another station along the Columbia, and like several of the others it was relocated when the old roadbed was inundated by damming. In neither case, though, does it seem to have any place for a town. In its first incarnation it was a passing siding on a ledge carved out beside the river; in its current form it is a much longer passing siding carved out on a new ledge along the river, and the "town" name has been moved on the topos to a second siding which branches off the first to service a small quarry, whose buildings are the only structures at the site. In the 1950s a house or such was built south of the track a bit east of the siding, but that's not a town. The place names DB calls it a station; I find nothing indicating a town. Mangoe ( talk) 00:54, 2 December 2021 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Modern Girl's Guide to Life

Modern Girl's Guide to Life (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television series. No significant coverage and unreferenced. SL93 ( talk) 23:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Show aired for years. Let's improve the article. This is not an appropriate canadaite for deletion. Its based off of a best selling book. Has had notable hosts as well over its six years run. Super ( talk) 13:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Comment Haphazardly voting Keep on everything isn’t a good idea. Even Near the time of the air date of this show, it got close to zero coverage other than non-critical reporting. Although celebrities did seem to host the show, this doesn’t make the show notable in and of itself.
Please be civil and truthful. I vote delete, make comments, and vote to merge often. Why do you feel the need to use language that implies a threat. That's not in line with our objectives here on Wikipedia! Remember to shelve your personal feelings when it comes to afd's and remember to allow the democratic process to play out. This is a show that is hosted by a best selling author, has aired for 6 years, has had numerous notable guest hosts.Voting Keep seems more than reasonable. Super ( talk) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Apologies for the first part of my comment. I didn’t mean to come across as rude. Jobie James ( talk) 17:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only thing about this TV show that I could find are various listings, useless coverage [26], and a very unhelpful IMDB page [27], and of course mentions of the show on the author’s page. [28] Jobie James ( talk) 06:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing by way of sources to establish notability Dexxtrall ( talk) 16:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Gareth Locke

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, although I do see a lot of coverage in tabloid journalism like Hello! and the Daily Mail. So, I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass on this one. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Sundale, Washington

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

On the banks of the Columbia River we take a break from the grain elevators and consider this rail station, for as best I can determine, that's all it was. The station siding is still there, and is southwest of the point marked by GNIS, because for some reason the topo people seized upon a loose spread of buildings as the "town". As far as I can determine, these were farm buildings: the aerials show this area covered by a sizable orchard. At any rate, references addressing the matter directly uniformly refer to this as a station. Mangoe ( talk) 00:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It needs improvement not deletion. Seems like it can be improved. It has a popular camping area as well. Super ( talk) 13:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Comment This article can’t be improved. A look through found sources shows no notability. A popular camping area does not warrant an article for this area. Jobie James ( talk) 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Railroad stations are not inherently notable, and this one lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Would support Draftify if editors are willing to work on improving it. – dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: we take humor where we can find it and this made me laugh "on the banks of the Columbia River we take a break from the grain elevators and consider this rail station".-- Milowent • has spoken 21:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It's a pretty good nom being both funny and to the point. snood1205( Say Hi! (talk)) 13:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No indication of notability. It's a railroad siding and not a community. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and Snood1205. Google Scholar turns up a few papers that happen to mention the place, but none of them focus on the location itself. Jobie James ( talk) 05:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Avilich ( talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_2&oldid=1059746543"