User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Yoku Hata	10 months ago	2	5207	0	1771.71
Street Dance Girls Fighter 2	10 months ago	1	5138	0	1702.74
Albanian Armed Forces Central Archive	10 months ago	4	7154	0	1599.39
Mahindra HyAlfa	10 months ago	1	3988	0	1595.84
Mohamed Fouzai	10 months ago	3	13543	0	1592.78
Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries	10 months ago	3	8340	0	1530.34
List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda	10 months ago	3	6687	0	1527.79
Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line	10 months ago	2	15852	0	1488.49
Common Shiner (band)	10 months ago	1	5399	0	1437.42
List of traditional regions of Slovakia	10 months ago	3	6461	0	1425.34
Museumand	10 months ago	2	29860	0	1417.53
Kai Staats	10 months ago	3	7954	0	1404.59
WETU-LD	10 months ago	0	3721	0	1400.12
Prohalino	10 months ago	1	4198	0	1389.42
Anup Pandalam	10 months ago	3	8707	0	1384.16
James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences	10 months ago	2	5243	0	1358.28
Chab chab	10 months ago	0	3243	0	1357.34
Angela Maxwell	10 months ago	1	3830	0	1338.78
Shores	10 months ago	2	5915	0	1338.61
Songwriters on Parade	10 months ago	1	6247	0	1336.77
Ya krasivaya	10 months ago	0	3550	0	1330.48
Gievenbach	10 months ago	1	3522	0	1324.49
1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election	10 months ago	1	5978	0	1293.6
Pomona, Washington	10 months ago	3	8799	0	1265.79
Chiranjibi Guragain	10 months ago	2	3649	0	1245.54

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. Star Mississippi 02:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yoku Hata

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

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORGWP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. I would be really interested in the opinions of anyone who reads Japanese. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ORG?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

And as for ATD (just like I had mentioned in a similar Afd you had initiated....) redirect to List_of_Japanese_comedians#G seems suitable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. He has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Added some to the page. More exist.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Mushy Yank -- notability has been established now. DCsansei (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we hear more about improvements to the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Street Dance Girls Fighter 2

Street Dance Girls Fighter 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom.''Flux55'' (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC))

Comment I found this, is this helpful? ‍ Relativity 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Looks like a legit article from the Korea Herald so yeah. Fence for me on the article overall, the words dance survival program in the article are a phrase that's new to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as no consensus - There is not a strong argument for deletion. At least one reliable source has been identified. Can always be merged into Street_Woman_Fighter_2#Street_Dance_Girls_Fighter_2 outside of AfD process if someone feels the initiative. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2024 (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Albanian Armed Forces Central Archive

Albanian Armed Forces Central Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Hard to know if I am missing anything in non-English sources. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or merge also unable to find any significant English language coverage. While parts of it could possibly be merged to the Albanian Armed Forces page, I'm not sure where/how it would fit. Shaws username (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment for clarity, I'm not trying to say that it should be deleted just becuase there aren't any English sources, merely that I can't find any. If someone has Albaninan sources that give it notability I'd move to keeping it. Shaws username . talk . 17:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect totally non-notable subject, Armed Forces of Albania page may have one line mention on this. --NiLok223 (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. State archives are usually notable. Not having English-language sourcing is not a deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, we know sources for the English name (which may have been made up for this article) are in short supply. The question is whether there are any sources for the Albanian name. A good starting point for looking would be the Albanian name already in the article: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• I am severely hampered in my searching by my total ignorance of the Albanian language, but this (in English), this and this may be usable as sources. If this is to be deleted let's do so on the basis of a good-faith search for sources, not because this is "a far away country of which we know little".Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I see the discussion as a valuable platform for enhancing the page and identifying good points. I am quite familiar with Albanian modern history, and particularly the sources within Albania, and I can say that the page deserves to be kept, not merged, with the current sourcing provided. Bager Drukit (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2024 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Mahindra HyAlfa

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

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

As far as I can tell it never went on sale Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, but consider a small merge to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as a possible search term Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully for more participation. But this article can't be Merged to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as that is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete It seems that the 2012 press release (which appeared in numerous Indian papers) was the only time that this vehicle has ever appeared. The use of the vehicles at Pragati Maidan did happen until at least 2015 but Mahindra never issued another press release on the subject. Its described as a concept vehicle on the Hydrogen vehicle page. MNewnham (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Appears that the prototype got some coverage but nothing more than that. I'm not opposed to a minor merge/redirect to Mahindra and Mahindra either but that doesn't seem to be necessary as most companies go through multiple prototypes before selecting a product. —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: A prototype, promotional coverage in few blogs not news papers. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:40, 13 March 2024 (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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed Fouzai

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

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

stub about an unnotable sportsperson. apparently didn't even finish in the men's Marathon - T46 event. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tunisia. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to look into it. apparently didn't even finish in the men's marathon – I don't think this is a fair assessment of the athlete's accomplishments, because he won a silver medal in the T46 men's 5000 m at the same Games, and was 4th in the T46 800 m. When assessing a subject's accomplishments, we should always take their best achievements rather than their worst, as the subject clearly seems to be more of a middle distance specialist. Most importantly to P&G concerns, there is a book about the subject here: Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia: Paralympic Athletes of Tunisia, Farhat Chida, Abbes Saidi, Abderrahim Zhiou, Ali Ghribi, Mohamed Fouzai. ISBN 978-1-158-10041-5.. I tried to investigate if it was an AI / fill-in-the-blanks book by searching for other book titles of the same format, and I was not able to find any, so I think it is a legitimate book even though it says "Currently unavailable". Based on WP:NEXISTS, I am voting to keep. --Habst (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Please reconsider, retract and strike as you see fit. The Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia book is a reprint of Wikipedia articles. It is a print-on-demand based on Wikipedia's category of the same name. I can guarantee you this. During my years on this site I have seen a lot of these floating around. They are easily identifiable by their cover (and topic). Other giveaways are the lack of author and the length of a measly 22 pages. Searching for other book titles of the same format? I get results such as:

Paralympic Swimmers of Israel

Paralympic Competitors for Singapore: Paralympic Bronze Medalists for Singapore, Paralympic Equestrians of Singapore

Paralympic Competitors for the United States

Articles on Spain at the Paralympics, Including

Paralympic Competitors for Mexico : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Mexico, Paralympic Athletes of Mexico

Articles on Paralympic Competitors for China, Including

Paralympic Competitors for Switzerland : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Switzerland, Paralympic Athletes of Switzerland

• Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:Geschichte, thank you both for letting me know about Books LLC, I have struck the part of my comment about that. Then, we have to look for other coverage of the athlete.

I see two sentences of coverage beyond just listing race results here (it mentions when Fouzai surged in the race, not possible to glean this info from just online databases so it indicates some level of on-the-ground reporting or analysis was done): "Athletics Morning Session Review -- Repeat performances -- china.org.cn". www.china.org.cn. Retrieved 2024-02-12.. I wonder if there is a telecast of the race where an announcer may have prepared remarks about Fouzai, that seems like a good direction to go in from here. --Habst (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• (Was typing this up as Geschichte replied): @Habst: Unfortunately that book is published by Books LLC per its Google result, which means that it is a reprint from Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Obviously, the What Links Here featured is the quickest way to check an athlete's accomplishments. Here, we can ascertain that he competed at the 2012 Paralympics as well, so no clear WP:ATD. Woefully short on WP:SIGCOV though. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Geschichte, I agree that is a helpful strategy, though on WP:ATD, I think there is a clear redirect target in Athletics at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's 5000 metres T46 because it is the only race in which the athlete won a medal, and it appears to be the race in which coverage mentions him the most, so it is thus his most significant race. --Habst (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• The china.org.cn source will be classified as WP:ROUTINE and nowhere near in-depth. It's two sentences... I'm sorry to to break it, but am just the messenger... Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know his Arabic (I think that's what's spoken in Tunisia?) name? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: It is "محمد فوزي" Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on that name, this looks to be an article primary about Fouzai as a leader of the Ministry of Youth And Sports, as a major decision-maker on Paralympic policy and naturalization of athletes: "مصر أولي بأبنائها.. وزارة الرياضة : نرفض تجنيس أبطالنا ونبحث عنهم فى كل مكان بالعالم". almasryalyoum.com (in Arabic). 28 August 2021. This article also extensively quotes Fouzai: "الشباب والرياضة: تقديم كل الدعم لمنتخب كرة القدم لقصار القامة في كأس العالم". www.albawabhnews.com. 2022-02-02. Retrieved 2024-02-18. Based on this new information, I am voting to keep as I think it is clear that sources exist, and these new positions should be added to the article. --Habst (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

He was not the leader of the Ministry of Youth and Sports in Egypt (or Tunisia), he (or someone with his name) was a spokesman for it. The actual minister is Ashraf Sobhy, who is clearly the person in the image of the "Minister of Youth and Sports" from the first article. It's not clear to me why a Tunisian would be serving as a ministry spokesperson in the government of Egypt, so I suspect this is a different person. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Different person, as both arms are intact in the image of the spokesman in this article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the potential of more sourcing since his name in local script was identified fairly late in the window
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I have not seen any SIGCOV in IRS of this person under either his English or Arabic name. Being quoted in a news article has zero impact on notability, otherwise every single spokesperson for an org whose activities are reported in the media would be notable.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay, thanks for doing this research. Are you sure the caption about Fouzai being the depicted person is accurate, or if it just depicts another person at the conference in error? Because I noticed that same photo is used in an article about Ashraf Sobhi here, where Fouzai is only mentioned briefly at the bottom: [1]

I am careful with my wording to say that the subject is a leader, not the leader. Tunisia and Egypt are geographically close, so I think it is plausible that the subject would work for a sports federation as is common for professional sportspeople after their careers end. Also, what so you think about the WP:ATD of redirecting to his silver-medal-winning race article? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You can search the pictures of spokesperson Fouzai yourself. The search term is his name plus "spokesperson".

No it is not "plausible" that Egypt would hire, as a spokesman of the federal government, a citizen of a country 2000 km away. Minister Sobhi was spokesman Fouzai's doctoral supervisor, that's why he was hired. Don't you think that link, in which Fouzai explains his background on the subject and describes what his thesis says about Olympic tournaments, would maybe mention that he had competed in the Paralympics? JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

i don't think you meant to search for "محمد ٠وزي" "المتحدث Ø¨Ø§Ø%. ltbdl (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What a bizarre error...not sure how that got turned into gibberish (or how that gibberish still seemed to generate results?!), but if this still doesn't work then you can just search "المتحدث باسم" "محمد فوزي" in images. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Being quoted or interviewed doesn't help notability here and the discussion above doesn't sway me towards notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: No coverage for this person found. Even in French sources, it only hits on soccer players. What's given now for sourcing are database listings. Non-notable athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The Arabic sources cited in the article look pretty good to me. The best English language sources I could find seem to be | an FAS fact sheet, | Global Security fact sheet, and | a Carnegie Middle East Center report on Egypt's military industrial complex which has paragraphs about this factory on pages 55 and 212. There are also plenty of mentions in routine and not fully independent coverage which don't help much for notability but can be used to source facts in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  those English sources are not good - as I mentioned, passing mentions. BoraVoro (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources mentioned above do not meet the criteria as already been pointed out. Eluchil404 pretty much admits the sources are "fully independent" and "don't help much for notability". The arabic sources in the article are no better; one is a page displaying the logos of 23 companies with no in-depth information, another relies entirely on info provided by the company and the chairman, another is PR relating to a visit by a government minister, another reports on a meeting where the company attended for continued/increased government support. None of those sources meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. My position is that the FAS, GS, and Carnegie Middle East Center sources I listed above are independent and substantial. The FAS and GS sources are basically copies of each other, but they are clearly independent of the company/the Egyptian government. They are fairly short. The CMEC source is again fully independent and has at least two paragraphs of coverage which I would condider substantial in this context, but others might not. My comments about sources lacking independence or significant coverage referred to other sources I found but did not list. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Response The fact that the GAS and GS website pages are *identical* proves that at least one is not independent content. Can't be independent if its a copy. The FAS info is from 1999 and predates GS by 12 years so my guess is GS is the copy. The GS info is a total of 5 sentences. Inadequate to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The last reference only appears to mention the topic company once, in passing, also not NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (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 Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reason to have a separate list from Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda, where these seven are listed as well. These "capitals", apart from the real capital Saint John, are very small villages and don't seem to get special attention as a group apart from their role in the parishes, which is treated at the other article. I redirected it but was reverted. The minimal extra information here can easily be merged into the other article if necessary and sourced, and if the sources then work (many of the ethnicity pdfs don't load in either the original or the archived form, and I don't see where e.g. the "foreign born" percentages come from, the census document only gives these figures per parish) Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Antigua and Barbuda. Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda with the history intact so that sourced information can be merged if desired. There is no need to cover these details in two articles rather than one. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see how this situation is different from any other list of capitals of country subdivisions. CROIX^talk 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have spoken to the Statistics Division to fix the demographics links. All the other sources appear to be intact and prove that these are in fact parish capitals. CROIX^talk 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect - seems to pass NLIST, but my preference would be to keep. The foreign born issue can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • What does it add that can't be (or isn't already) covered in the proposed target article? Duplicating information just because NLIST doesn't specifically disallow it (and NLIST doesn't disallow anything it seems) seems like a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

    Then there should have been a merge discussion. There's no information in this article that needs to be deleted apart from maybe the foreign born percentages. But I don't think it's as duplicative as you're arguing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect or merge The main article already lists all the capitals, and the population could be added there. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (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 delete‎. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  We can add it by adding inline citations and original source from the NGCP Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx NGCP is not an independent source, right? We need more sources that are unrelated to the subject. NGCP is the operator of the transmission line itself, and its website is already non-independent of the subject itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'am not owned this article, @Ervin111899 currently owned this article and I also add some of the missing information, adding some correct citations etc. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx note I mentioned you since you responded here and I need to get your attention in my response. Also, take note that no user can own a Wikipedia article, per WP:OWN, as Wikipedia articles are collaborative works.

  Any way, the pre-COVID pandemic era article of the same transmission line – that got deleted – was also created by Ervin111899. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  What happened about the article was created in 2019 before pandemic Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @JWilz12345, what happened to the same article "Hermosa–Balintawak Transmission Line" since pre-COVID-19 pandemic. Is something wrong about the citations or lacking information. Since @Ervin111899 was after indefinitly blocked, due to abusing multiple accounts, he/him/their/they created the second article named Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line but ended up as another deletion that mentions the article has lack of citations, external links or it can be lack of information in power transmission operators NAPOCOR, Transco, and NGCP. Their documents is privately secured and the inaacurate infos is in the said article. So thats why you have to nominate in the said article and possible deletion of @Ervin111899 as the articles not to be supposed by the viewers and even breaking the NGCP's property. Thanks a lot! -- Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 10:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx read this. You seem to haven't visited the link I inserted at "was deleted" at the nomination paragraph above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I visited twice. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. @User:Liz I'm responding to Your call for participation and FWIW I'll try to find time over the weekend to take a look at this article. Pieces of infrastructure may be notable but don't necessarily need to be. For the moment I assume good faith in terms of the article. Hope to get back to You in a couple of days with some information. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I must this page is to keep it because some viewers curious in NLEX. Keep this page for all curious viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 08:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx unfortunately, much of the sources are not independent of the subject. NGCP and DOE are not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject, thus the sources are non-independent and do not give weight to the notability of this article.

  Also, too many original researches, which are discouraged, read WP:OR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC) and National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), although both were also involved in the transmission line and its associated projects when they operated and maintained the Philippine power grid (NAPOCOR/NPC from June 1994 to March 1, 2003 and TransCo from March 1, 2003 to January 15, 2009), are also not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject thus the sources coming from them (or company name shown (none at all for the case of lands and rights-of-way (ROWs) or portions acquired and designated by NAPOCOR/NPC where it simply says "Danger: High Voltage Keep Away") on high voltage signs because that company was the one designated and acquired the lands where the structures/facilities are located and portions of a power line when the line and their structures are seen physically or on Google Maps) are non-independent. Ervin111899 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  What about the original sources Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  The excessive use of the original sources can be discourage to viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx we need more secondary sources, like SunStar source used in the controversy section. Significant coverage of the transmission line in reliable, independent secondary sources will give more weight than non-independent sources (like DOE etc.) or primary sources (like NGCP, TransCo etc.). This ensures the article is neutral and not providing facts that unreasonably favor the people or organizations heavily connected to the subject, like NGCP and DOE. Secondary sources may include reputable news outlets or agencies, like Philippine News Agency, Rappler, GMA News, ABS-CBN News, or Manila Bulletin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Common Shiner (band)

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

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is minor local music awards that don't pass WP:NMUSIC #8 -- that's looking for major national awards on the order of the Grammys, not just any small-fry music award that exists -- but otherwise this is on the level of "band who exist(ed)". The sourcing, meanwhile, is not establishing that they would pass WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are to their own self-published EPK on SonicBids, one is to a (deadlinked) Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog, and the last is a (deadlinked) piece of "local band tries to make it" in the local newspaper of their own hometown, which is not enough to singlehandedly vault them over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only piece of acceptable third-party coverage they have.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more and better coverage than this, and the article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2016 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Not seeing enough significant coverage to pass notability guidelines. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd in 2007 so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: The sources available are insufficient for a standalone article. Ping me if more sources are found. @T.C.G. [talk] 17:39, 10 March 2024 (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 merge‎ to Regions of Slovakia. as an ATD suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

List of traditional regions of Slovakia

List of traditional regions of Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article consists entirely of a short yet confusing list with very little context. It's not clear what a "traditional region" is. It has no references. If anything, it should be merged into Regions of Slovakia. Also, while there are a lot of pages that say they link here, I think most if not all of the links are just the Slovakia infobox. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• I think "traditional region" is very easy to understand, comparing with Districts of Norway and Provinces of Sweden. They are districts/regions that are not regions in a formal sense (anymore). With that being said, the List of traditional regions of Slovakia looks like it used to be an addendum to another list (and checking the history, indeed it was). It also seems too light for its own list though, and the contents should therefore be mentioned at Regions of Slovakia. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. How about, since the article is dreadfully short (compare e. g. similar one on Polish historical regions), unless expanded this could serve as a separate section at Regions of Slovakia? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a fork of Regions of Slovakia. Difficult to source, unlike, e.g., Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure by the comments here about a "mention" whether or not editors are advocating a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Follow-up: I would not want to merge this list, because it is unsourced. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The same can be said about just any other region. Lorstaking (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Regions of Slovakia. These traditional regions are clearly real; all four of them have full Wikipedia articles, three of them in English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to pull sources from those articles or research further if sourcing is unsatisfactory. All of them and many more listed on List of tourism regions of Slovakia, so it shouldn't be hard to find official information about them from the tourism board. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (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 keep‎. Consensus eventually formed that sufficient sourcing exists to support an article on this topic. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Museumand

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

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

I have nominated the article 'Museumand' for deletion. The creator disagrees so I have not treated it as non-controversial or simple. There is a discussion at the article's Talk page. In my opinion, the article fails on WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliabilesources and WP:WhatWikipediaisnot. In summary, the article describes an ostensibly extant museum and group of which there is insufficient evidence of existence, notability, verifiability or reliability. I will take no further part in the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Caribbean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: as the article creator I have expanded and updated this article substantially since Eastmain Emmentalist '(edited to correct name of prposer PamD 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)) expressed their concerns yesterday, and I believe that Museumand is a notable organisation as shown by their current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum and the one last year at Nottingham Castle, their podcast chosen as "best of the week" by The Guardian, and their other activities. Yes, their web site is currently displaying "Maintenance", but the fact that Google searches are still returning both the home page and many subpages suggests that the website and organisatiion have been alive and well in the very recent past: I have provided archived links to get past this, probably temporary, problem. Even if it was to turn out that the organisation is now defunct, that would not affect its notability: Wikipedia records history as well as the present.

The nominator, in talk page discussion, accused me of WP:OR because I found a catalogue entry for the book to verify it's existence: not my understanding of OR. They also appeared to suggest I was part of a PR operation for Museumand: my only connection with it is that I heard about it (almost certainly on BBC Radio 4, very likely on Woman's Hour) thought it sounded Notable, and created the article. I am not a paid editor and have no COI. PamD 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am the nominator and so will not take part in the keep/delete discussion. However, for clarity I should reply to the comments above. In my comments at the talk page I write; "I absolutely presume that the Wikipedia article was created in good faith". My reference to WP:WWIN is instead to the way PR is designed to enter discourse and is often repeated by others in good faith. If I felt that WP:COI applied, I would have said that. As it happens, I do think searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR. Finally, When I nominated this article for AfD I made it clear that I was not using one of the simpler procedures since the article originator disagreed. It does not seem quite right, to me, that the article originator should now vote on their own article. But there it is. I appreciate, of course, that the final decision will not simply be a matter of adding up the votes. I'll leave it at that. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Re searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR: the existence of the book was queried, I looked it up in Library Hub Discover, the union catalogue of most UK libraries, and found a record for it. WP:OR is defined as "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Is it suggested that Leeds City Library's catalogue is unreliable? PamD 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Not taking any position as to notability but @Emmentalist you're not quite correct on two elements. The author is welcome and encouraged to participate at AfD, and OR has nothing to do with researching/verifying the existence of a book via a library catalogue. As nominator, you don't !vote because your nomination is considered a vote for deletion in itself but you're otherwise welcome and encouraged to participate as well. Star Mississippi 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, @Star Mississippi Very helpful and educative point very much taken! I don't think such a book exists, by the way. As you imply, my main arguments relate not to whether a pseudo-book exists on one local authority library catalogue but to the separate issues of sufficient and verifiable coverage. Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist Note this which says "The exhibition ... is accompanied by a book of the same title (available for sale at the Castle shop). You really don't think it exists? PamD 23:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, @PamDI take @Star Mississippi's point. Let me make this one appeal to commonsense and goodwill. There is no doubt in my mind that two people identifiable on some websites, who call themselves Museumand, have written some blogposts and contributed to several institutions' displays on the UK's Windrush generation. I have argued here and at the Talkpage that this is most creditable but not sufficient of itself for WP:Notability and does not satisfy other WP policies. There is nothing to stop you revisiting Museumand in future so see if things have changed. I am also concerned, as a subsidiary point, that the article seeks to further claims of founding a national museum when they do not seem true in any substantive sense (for example, a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building with a large variety visitable exhibits. A 'museum without walls' is a catchphrase, not a museum). I am not super-keen to get into a theological debate about what constitutes a book/pamphlet/pseudo-book, to be honest. I suspect that some combination of ISBN number, publisher, author, etc, might be in order. The main thing here is that a statement in a website that something is available somewhere (but where there is no other evidence of that something's availability in book form) is not of itself sufficiently notable evidence of existence. At root, my argument is simply based upon the policies laid out earlier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Re a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building: not so, nowadays. See Virtual museum. PamD 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, @PamD. I took a look. You'll see there's a need for verification at that article. In the end, it seems to simply re-badge other things (databases, museum enhancements, etc) as museums in themselves. I think there's a profound epistemological question in play there. What next? I create a 'virtual' display around a horse and it's actually a kind of horse? Tbh, I'll leave that to others. :-) Defo nice chatting, though! Emmentalist (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Emmentalist You might think that a choir is a group of people who sing together in one place: but a Virtual choir can produce some amazing performances without ever meeting each other, or the conductor or the sound engineers. Times change. PamD 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting point @PamD. Thinking now........... Emmentalist (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Emmentalist I saw the above comment because this page is on my watchlist, but your "ping" didn't work because a ping has to be added in an edit which includes a signature, and your two-step process won't have had that effect. The trick is to add a new or replacement signature if you add a ping, or a second ping, as an afterthought or correction. There's always something new to learn about editing. PamD 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for this. Noted! I wondered why it looked wrong. Clearly, I have a lot to learn. And, frankly, not just about Wikipedia. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: People from the museum wrote a few blog posts for the Bank of England, that's about all the coverage I could find. One podcast in FEAST magazine. Just not enough to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the blog posts were to accompany an exhibition by Museumand held at the Bank of England Museum: see https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/museum/whats-on/pardner-hand. PamD 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• It appears that this has only recently acquired the name "Museumand", so it will be necessary to look through the sources found by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been expanded today with well-sourced content about Museumand's collaborations with a range of organisations over several years. PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment 2 Note that Museumand's website, which recently reported "undergoing maintenance" or some similar term, now says "We'll be back soon". PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  The comments above by the article's originator don't change things at all. The WP:GNG policies, and all the others referred to at the deletion nomination are clear and none of these new references satisfy them. The website status has no bearing on this discussion at all. For completeness, the new references are as follows:

  1. An archived webpage with no verifiable status and no publisher.

  2. A 2015 article from the webpage of a local media outlet serving Nottingham which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand (i.e. the title of the Wikipedia article).

  3. An archived webpage with no verifiable status. It appears to be a page from the Museumand website, which in turn has been unavailable since 2022 at the latest.

  4 and 5. Undated University-branded webpages which each make a reference to Museumand.

  6. A 2018 book title which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.

  7. An undated Nottingham local history webpage which refers to Museumand.

  8. A 2018 BBC webpage which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.

  9. A 2019 "Feast" website article which refers to Museumand.

  10. A 2021 University website which refers to Museumand in an event date.

  11. A 2020 webpage with no verifiable status (and no publisher which describes in detail the only two people ever associated with Museumand in any resource.

  12. A website with no verifiable status which refers to Museumand.

  13. A Hull news website which refers to Museumand.

  14. A website describing Nottingham Castle which refers to Museumand.

  15. A Nottingham City Council website which refers to Museumand.

  16. A PR company website which refers to Museumand.

  17. A Guardian webpage describing a podcasts which refers to the presenters of one as linked to Museumand.

  18. Webpage descriptor and link to podcast at 17 (above).

  19. A webpage which refers to Museumand.

  20. A blog written by the owners of Museumand, related to 19 (above).

  21. A 2020 blogpage (archived from the inaccessible Museumand website?) written by one of the Museumand owners.

  22. Ditto 21 (although some of the text appears unavailable).

  As has already been said at nomination, and noted by one editor who recommended deletion, the Guardian reference to a podcast related to the mother and daughter who appear to own Museumand might, if supported elsewhere, satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not supported; nothing else listed here reflects WP:GNG acceptable sources. The article fails on all the policies referred to at the nomination.

  No-one is questioning that two people in Nottingham have done excellent and worthy work in helping local Nottingham Museums and universities, and a couple further afield, mount displays; but Museumand is simply not a notable entity (indeed there is little evidence that it presently exists) which justifies a Wikipedia article. I have made the effort here to flag this all not to be mean, quite the contrary, but simply to uphold Wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if editors who make comments here do also make a delete/keep recommendation as this discussion already has too much from me and the originator and is on its final re-list. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Emmentalist, a few of your observations are made because the source does not mention Museumand by name. Didn't you read the discussion, including my post above, before making them? Until recently this was known as the National Caribbean Heritage Museum. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, @Phil Bridger. Of course I read the discussion, including your comment. Here is my reply: 1. The title of the article is "Museumand". It is clearly relevant if a reference does not mention that name. 2. I have gone to a great deal of effort to lay out how and why the article does not satisfy a number of WP policies, including WP:Notability. That includes following through on your suggestions of places to look for valid and reliable references. Can I just ask politely if you have read my fulsome comments?I appreciate that you have made the effort to make a brief comment here, but tbh it would be more useful if you took a view on delete/keep. If you feel that it should be retained, you simply have to say that you feel the references provided satisfy WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources and vote 'keep'. I've made a genuine effort to justify the delete nomination; there has been one delete vote and no-one has yet argued against my WP policy-based rationale. I'm not interested in engaging in a continuous argument with editors who are not prepared to express an opinion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Emmentalist, no it is relevant irrelevant (typo pointed out by PamD) what name a source uses to reference the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm. I assume good faith, of course, and I an see that you have made many more edits at WP than me, but I honestly find it difficult to understand why editors would take the time to make what are in the end multiple ephemeral comments about minor points without making a keep/delete judgement, the latter being the point of this discussion. I've laid out many points in defence of the substantive nomination for deletion; why not simply express a view? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't checked all the statements above, but I'd point out that ref 8 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand", is about an exhibition "being run in conjunction with the Nottingham-based National Caribbean Heritage Museum." and the article later says "the National Caribbean Heritage Museum, also known as Museumand". PamD 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  And ref 6 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is included because it has bibliographic info about the book mentioned in ref 5, so complements that source in supporting the statement in the article. PamD 17:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  And ref 2 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is clearly discussing its origins. PamD 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  and some of this concern can be solved with a redirect from National Caribbean Heritage Museum which is already in place so there really is no issue. @Emmentalist there is no need for someone to explicitly note Keep or Delete nor the article to explicitly mention the current name. It's still the same org and coverage transfers with it Star Mississippi 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Star Mississippi The substantive issue is whether the references satisfy the policies. There's really no way that they do, imho. However, I don't agree that there is meaningful evidence that there is truly 'an organisation' involved here at all. I've already commented above about the aggrandised nature of a claim of a National museum. But in any case, why not simply say whether you think it's a 'keep' or 'delete' based upon WP policies? I honestly feel I've done enough here. It's up to folk like you to take a view, I think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Re ref 16: for "PR company" read "independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire. It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" (from its "About us"), and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day. PamD 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, let me re-word this as:

  Re ref 16: for what Emmentalist refers to as "PR company" read "a resource called Museums + Heritage Advisor which describes itself as 'independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire.' and says of itself 'It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create' (from its 'About us')", and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day.

  PamD 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The references meet WP:THREE. Specifically, the BBC news article, which is independent, reliable and significant coverage of the National Caribbean Heritage Museum / Museumand; the Guardian article about the podcast; and the Museums and Heritage article. I see that the other references are not all independent, but they do verify that the organisation is involved with other notable organisations like the Bank of England and Oxford University. Tacyarg (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding that the organisation is mentioned in a couple of books, Mother Country: Real Stories of the Windrush Children and Today: A History of our World through 60 years of Conversations & Controversies, both reliable sources, publisher is Hachette. I haven't added these to the article as they don't add any content to that already there, but it does show coverage of the organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

PR

I assume good faith from all editors here, but the comment above, full of transparent PR nonsense, is untrue and has made me worry whether PR interests might, one way or the other, be intruding into this discussion. M&H Ltd, which appears to be the source of some of the website references referred to in this discussion and is described by @PamD as; "a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" is a wholly privately-owned PR and events company which self-describes elsewhere as; "an independent events and publishing company". I have made a genuine effort to show how this article does not conform to WP policies. I do not want to engage any further in what is beginning to feel to me like a discussion with an opaque purpose. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not "described by" me as: I quoted their own self-description and made this quite clear. PamD 11:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

References

COI?

The introduction of a heading, above, has disrupted the normal flow of an AfD discussion so I see no option but to introduce another such heading. @Emmentalist: has now suggested on my talk page that I may have a COI with Museumand.

In the interest of clarity, I disclose here an email which I sent to "hello@museumand.org" on 15 Feb:

Hallo

I created a Wikipedia article about Museumand a couple of years ago, I think after hearing Catherine and Lydia on Radio 4. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museumand, though someone else edited it to call you a "group" rather than a "museum".

Your website seems to be "under maintenance" and the person trying to delete the article (as "not notable" in Wikipedia's very specific terms) claims that it seems to have been so for some time, so that Museumand may or may not still exist. I can see that the SKN CIC records at Companies House are up to date, and that you've got a current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum. Is the web site likely to reappear in the near future? I hope so. Or, if Museumand has folded in the last few months, is there a newspaper or magazine or website article about its closure, which would help prove that it was notable, even if it no longer exists. (Wikipedia is about history as well as today).

Best wishes, anyway!

Pam

Is that COI? Or an attempt to improve the encyclopedia? I have had no reply, but I note that the website has changed from "Maintenance" to "Back soon" since I sent that email. I have had no other contact whatsover with Museumand, apart from hearing a radio feature about them in the first place and researching them online. PamD 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not call this a COI @PamD.

@Emmentalist your readings of policy & guidelines does not (edited Star Mississippi 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)) seem to agree with the general community's in several instances as I've noted above. You've made your case here, I suggest you let others weigh in. If you think there's a conduct issue, feel free to take it to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Star Mississippi So we're entirely clear, I followed the WP:COI process and opened a discussion at @PamDs Talk page, not here. If I may say, I honestly don't understand why you are prepared to take part to such a degree in a deletion discussion at the margins (i.e around minor points of quibble) rather than taking a delete/keep view on the substantive policies I've made a considerable effort to lay out. Perhaps you could help the process by take a keep/delete view based on the policies? Whichever view you take, it would be very helpful and constructive. For clarity re: COI, I will not confuse the AfD by discussing that here (it is at @pamD's talk page), but I will say that contacting Museumand and effecting a change at the website, and misdescribing a PR company (which I have indications may have a paid interest in the Museumand issue) as a community the relevant user might be part of, go well beyond Wikipedia article editing and quite possibly into WP:COI. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist you have chosen to badger participants who doesn't agree with your POV, beginning with saying @PamD shouldn't participate as article creator and misunderstanding or misapplying policies such as OR. Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position. But for future AfDs, please remember it's about discussion, not named !votes. As a closer, conversation helps more than the bolded portion. If you have a substantive case to back up your repeated COI allegations, please take them to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(afer edit conflict) I, for one, am genuinely undecided about the disposition of this article, but policy is that the decision should be made on the basis of sources for any name by which it has gone. There is far too much making of decisions before thought at AfD. The reverse should be done. This is a discussion, not a vote. And the idea that PamD has a conflict of interest is simply preposterous. You do yourself no favours by making such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) And I find it very hard to argue against someone named after cheese, which I just love.

AfD discussion so far

Hi, @PamD, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger. I nominated Museumand for deletion. I've provided, in my opinion, a great deal of evidence that the article does not satisfy WP policies. I've specified the relevant policies. WP:Notibility is perhaps the most significant one. In my view, @PamD has edged into WP:COI; I've provided reasoning for my view (although I do not suggest that it is not arguable) at the relevant Talk page as laid out as the first step at WP:COI. I have done all this in good faith. In response, @PamD has accused me of "trying to wreck" an article (I am simply trying to delete it as per WP policy) and I am now accused of badgering. In addition, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger have approached the discussion in a way which avoids taking a substantive view while offering, in my view, ephemeral comments which take no view at all on delete/keep. This is an AfD discussion and to seek to constrain it to marginal issues appears, to me, something which might limit discourse so that it does not reach a consensus/conclusion. As with all edits, this is a learning experience for me. I assume good faith on the part of all editors, but I am honestly puzzled as to why experienced editors are so unprepared to make a judgement against the criteria laid down in the relevant WP policies. I will leave my comments at that and move on. Thanks for taking the time to chat, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that @Star Mississippi, an admin, intervened above to point out Emmentalist's misunderstanding of the procedures for AfD (2:33 pm, 18 February 2024), and has since said Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position., which is an honourable position which has excluded them from making a !vote.

I am also tired of being accused of COI. My only connection with Museumand is that, having heard them featured in a radio programme, I decided to create an article about them, and I have since sent one, neutral, email which I copied above. Naturally, as the creator of the article, I do not want to see it deleted. I don't see the phrase "trying to wreck" anywhere: on my talk page I mentioned that Emmentalist seemed "intent on destroying" the article (let's face it, nominating an article at AfD is indeed an attempt to remove, wreck, destroy, obliterate, annihilate... all synonyms for "delete" in this context), but their determination to pursue this AfD certainly gives that impression, with their inaccurate statements such as that relating to reference 8 and repeated accusation of COI. PamD 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The bulk of your last 50 edits have involved trying to get this deleted. Coming on the heels of an account that was created to an AfD an article, it reads a little off @Emmentalist. Regardless of how this closes, I recommend you take a deep read into the policies and guidelines before another AfD. It will help ensure the process goes more smoothly. Star Mississippi 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have adhered strictly to all policies. You are welcome to examine my editing history, which I think you will find is careful, always in good faith and represents a proper application of policy. You refer to my editing of 2022: that AfD was indeed what brought me into editing as it was a very poor article; the article was deleted. You have, on the contrary, refused to take a position on the substantive matter of an AfD discussion; i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted. With great respect, I really feel that we've taken this discussion as far as we can. Perhaps other editors will express a view now, or alternatively an admin will close. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• keep per rationale by User:Tacyarg above references meet WP:THREE. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I see reliable sourcing on the page sufficient to meet GNG. The name change does make the search more challenging. I'm quite confused by the non-standard sectioning in this formal process. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - wow, this has turned into a mess, so I'll take my rational back to basics: I count WP:THREE so we can establish N; the rest of the nomination is outside the scope of AfD (WP:NOTCLEANUP) and not needed in a keep decision. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:12, 15 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. This discussion lacked specificity, it's not evident from the deletion nomination that BEFORE was done, and "looks notable to me" comments are not useful in any way, shape or form, I can't tell whether the article was even read. I don't find most of the comments in the AFD persuasive. Maybe a return trip to AFD in six months would be warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Kai Staats

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

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

Does not seem to clear notability requirements as an academic or businessman. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shaws username . talk . 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Engineering, Arizona, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe he does meet notability requirements. He is the research director at the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars at the Biosphere 2, affiliated with the University of Arizona. He is also the lead developer of SIMOC an interactive simulator built on NASA data that is on the National Geographic's website. At a NASA Human Research Program conference this year, NASA researchers even know him. Additionally, a number of recent technical papers in peer reviewed journals related to life support systems include him as an author and sometimes as a senior author. I can help update his webpage in the next month or so. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you point to specific coverage per our general notability guideline, or better, our notability guideline for academics? Remsense诉 02:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep - from a spaceflight perspective there is sufficient notability here: https://biosphere2.org/about/leadership-directory (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Delete Reviewing the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Staas appears to have undertaken considerable research but does not pass the threshold for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Being recognized by NASA researchers also does not constitute "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity," but I recognize that there could be documentation of notability that is missing. Additionally, I am concerned by the fact that the original author of this article was paid by Staas to write it and, after COI issues were explained to the author, the page was edited by Staats himself. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seem to be ongoing challenges to quality. Vegantics (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Vegantics, Soft Deletion is not possible if any editor has argued to Keep an article. Or if the article has been subject to a PROD or prior AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have included his position as Research Director, developer of SIMOC a web interface simulator listed under Nat Geo for modeling life support systems. I have also listed a couple of publications for research he has done in modeling life support systems. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I added content related to Staats' position as research director and current work being done on modeling life support systems. These are verifiable on a university website and by publications, respectively, but these were deleted. Why? Spacesurgeon (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Looks notable to me. Sufficient sources that meets GNG. Mevoelo (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (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 List of Daystar Television Network stations as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WETU-LD

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

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Redirect or merge to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am unsure whether a redirect to the Daystar list or to WAXC-LD, which this station simulcast for a considerable time including when both stations were UPN affiliates, is more appropriate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 March 2024 (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 Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. ✗plicit 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Prohalino

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

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

Non-notable. Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony near Suchodolina. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we think of any redirect targets? Such terms can be searchable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka as suggested above. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussion and multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Anup Pandalam

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

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

I couldn't find enough information about this person from reliable sources. There's not much evidence showing they played a major role in the movies listed. I tried redirecting their page to a film they directed called "Shefeekkinte Santhosham," but it was reverted by the author. The subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources or meet the criteria for being recognized as an actor or filmmaker. So, it should be deleted or simply redirect it to the film they directed. GSS ^💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. GSS ^💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The sources were relisted that up to four articles (news sources) were used for citing the page. I wouldn't add a vote now but I needs a bit rewriting since there was a little move of notability. Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Otuọcha: The sources added by the author are nothing but reference bombing. None of the newly cited sources support whether the subject of this AfD has played a major role in the films listed in the article, so they don't meet WP:NACTOR. Most of the sources just briefly mention the subject, and the reliability of some is questionable. None of them really discuss the subject in depth, so they fail to meet the general notability guideline as well.GSS ^💬 14:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nominator. Fails WP: NACTOR. The sources seems still remain questionable and barely not independent of the subject. The references were sort of mere mention and provides no stand of notability. Hence, fails WP: GNG, WP: NACTOR, a little of WP: CREATIVE. Otuọcha (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep : He passes the 3rd criteria of Notability which says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " . He is the Director & Writer and also an actor of the feature film Shefeekkinte Santhosham . It is a well known movie and have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews in major newspapers. In addition this criteria passes for his television series Gulumaal for which he is the host and program producer. It has also been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles. Thus clearly passes notability. Additionally he is also an actor acted in 3 other movies for which references has been added as well. Passes WP:GNG Mischellemougly (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mischellemougly (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

  Filmmakers who have only directed or produced one film may fall under WP:BLP1E, which is why I redirected the article to his film. Regarding Anup Pandalam, he has garnered media attention solely for his directorial debut, with no evidence supporting a major acting role in the films listed. Additionally, it remains unclear how he meets the criteria of GNG when there is no significant coverage of him in any source. Furthermore, the Gulumaal is not a notable TV show as required by Wikipedia policies, and the roles of host and program producer are not considered major roles in such productions. GSS ^💬 08:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) updated 08:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR as director of at least one notable film Shefeekkinte Santhosham in 2022. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (NB- I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, a film is not an event).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Has couple of well notable films. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR.

Rydex64 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences

James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very few independent sources on the page - agree with the hatnote that these are insufficient to meet the GNG. I don't see much else which could be added. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(weak) Keep I added some main investigations fulfilled by the institute. Looking at scholar.google, it looks like a notable institute with 382- 395 hits. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The article you are pointing to, are not articles discussing the specific institute.Cinadon36 16:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn;t do an extensive "WP:BEFORE", but what I see it seems to be notable; and I can't read Chinese. Because of that my (weak) Keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: 82.174.61.58 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation from AFD regulars here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I see nothing applied or presented which puts this article past GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. A reasonable search is handicapped by all the coverage of James D. Watson. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2024 (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 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. Star Mississippi 22:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Chab chab

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

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

Unsourced and unnotable. Has minimal notability and has hardly any reliable sources about it. I've searched the internet for any documentation of this and all I've found were blogs, untrustworthy sites, etc. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I've found a mention in a German book by looking at the article on other wikis: "Schmuck aus dem Himalaja" by Hans Weihreter (1988). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I find nothing on google, google scholar, or my university library for "chab chab". A search for "Chab chab" Tibet has satisfied me that "chab" is a Tibetan word, but that's as far as I get without going really deep into search results. I don't see any examples at Tibetan culture#Clothing either. There's a sentence at that article that appears to have been written by someone trying to de-orphan Chab chab; it doesn't really fit with the rest. Since we don't have any good sources for it I think we should remove that line and delete this article. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Angela Maxwell

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

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Texas. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[2]] and [[3]]. Not a ton of coverage but enough for a weak pass. User:Let'srun 20:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'll do the courtesy of providing non-dead links to the articles. [4] [5] Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Coverage above fails YOUNGATH, SPORTCRIT, and GNG. Both sources are from the same local newspaper and cover her youth achievements, so are disqualified from counting toward GNG; also, the more substantial one is a submission rather than the product of independent journalism (it's a "special to the Star-Telegram") and the briefer one is a routine announcement. @Let'srun

JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Shores

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

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their music to pass WP:GNG -- but four of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're all the third party coverage this band has.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not addressing any of the content since 2012, but the version of the page that stood for half a decade before that, Special:Permalink/130728486, definitely seems acceptable and not deletion-worthy. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it should be returned to being a redirect per WP:PLURAL if there is a consensus this should be deleted and if desired the edit history of the band deleted but if there is a consensus this should be kept or a lack of consensus it should be moved to Shores (band). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep, This is properly sourced now, and I tend to er on the side of retention, but I really don't know much about them. I tagged it as a stub. I suggest giving editors a chance to see if more support for notability exists.--Panther999 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Sources 2 and 7 are RS. 2 is a video, 7 seems to link to a 404 page, rest is trivial coverage. I can't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've fixed the link on 7. But I tend to agree that it doesn't look like it qualifies for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there support for Redirection and, if so, what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This is some ip editor's vanity project (created inside a redirect) and I agree the sourcing is inadequate. No Idea Records seems to contain a list of similar bands, if a redirect is preferred. BusterD (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Songwriters on Parade

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. I found a lot of passing mentions in sources in a WP:BEFORE search, but no sources with in-depth coverage. In searching newspapers.com I found a number of advertisements dating to as early as 1932, and I strongly question the truth of the 1931 dating based on zero coverage in any newspapers prior to April 1932. I found a number of articles mentioning the "show" in passing; often buried in the middle of film reviews as this "show" often entertained audiences in conjunction with movies shown at Loews. I put "show" in quotes because the "Songwriters on Parade" was really more of a vaudeville act billed alongside other vaudeville acts according to the advertisements and passing mentions. None of them actually reviewed the "Songwriters on Parade" performances though, and didn't have anything much to say about it. The most in-depth coverage I could find on "Songwriters on Parade" was for a British Lion film of that name; presumably named for the vaudeville act. There was also a radio program of that name, and a later stage runs in the 1940s and 1950s that were not connected to the earlier vaudeville act; although it was certainly referencing back to it. All of this to say, I'm not confident that an article can be built that isn't WP:OR with an absence of in-depth sources. Nobody seems to have written a concise history or overview anywhere that I could locate. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Entertainment. CptViraj (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I found a Variety review with a substantial description of the act. They appear to have continued doing the act, at least occasionally, well into the 1940s. See also page 9 here. I bet it shows up in a lot of books about vaudeville. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers I already checked the standard vaudeville reference works and books. It has zero mentions in Vaudeville, Old & New: An Encyclopedia of Variety Performers in America (2007), The Encyclopedia of Vaudeville (2012), Vaudeville and the Making of Modern Entertainment (2012), Vaudeville Melodies: Popular Musicians and Mass Entertainment in American Culture, 1870-1929 (2017); etc. Likewise, no mentions in any of the standard Tin Pan Alley reference works. I think this is largely because the standard vaudeville encyclopedias and reference works tend to view vaudeville as over by the early 1930s. This Songwriters on Parade happened after the vaudeville circuits had died, and was largely playing in movie theaters alongside films. The point is I don't think anyone has written on this in a broader sense anywhere. The only books I could find covering anything were all about broadcasts of the radio program Songwriters on Parade on WWRL (which may had some sort of connection to the stage performances?), and the British Lion film made at Beaconsfield which took its name from the act. I'm fairly certain there are no books with in-depth coverage of this act. It's a topic that definitely deserves to be written on by an academic researcher. I'm just not sure it's possible to do on wikipedia with the available sources without resorting to WP:Original synthesis. I note that the entire second sentence fact failed verification when I looked at the cited source. For a two sentence long article that is pretty bad...4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2024 (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 HiT TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Ya krasivaya

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

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

Show does not seem to be notable based on Google search. Only source in article is an interview with the winner. Spinixster (chat!) 03:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Russia. Spinixster (chat!) 03:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Vietnamese Wikipedia has been article of delete and the results was delete. Mohammed07102007 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to HiT TV as an alternative to deletion. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Gievenbach

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

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

Very limited refs on the page for many years - just a mention in a government list. Nothing much to suggest a 4km small stream meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep again notability is not what is in the article, I've found additional information here [6] and there are a lot of mentions of the stream in a BEFORE search. Since WP:GEOLAND is a low bar - we just need more than statistics - I'm convinced that is out there, especially with simple Google Scholar searches. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really see how being a habitat for mudsnails makes this stream notable. It doesn't even appear that snails are particularly rare, it is just a place that the scientists found them. JMWt (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:But_there_must_be_sources! James.folsom (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:23, 3 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Another AFD closed as No consensus due to low participation. My suggestion to the nominator is to try again in six months. Maybe by then we'll have more editors participating in AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election

1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It does not satisfy any of the subsections of WP:COVERAGE, nor WP:GEOSCOPE, and is very borderline on WP:LASTING.

In addition, the citations used or otherwise available are exclusively WP:PRIMARY; this contravenes the WP:NOR policy, which prohibits “bas[ing] an entire article on primary sources". Newspaper sources published the same day of the events described are indisputably primary—see WP:RSBREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS for the reasoning.

In conclusion, the article is in contravention of an editing policy and a notability guideline, so any keep votes will need to address that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Philippines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: An WP:ATD should be considered, outright deletion would be inappropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Can I ask why Curbon7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ATDs should always be sought out if one is available. For instance, election results for national offices is something that is always going to meet the criteria for inclusion, whether as a standalone article or in a collection list (see WP:NOPAGE). In this case, I see this election is listed at List of special elections in the Philippines#Philippine Legislature (without numerical results), so that can be a valid target for redirection if this article is deemed not sufficiently notable as a standalone page. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. In that case, I support redirecting to that section too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as redirect but have reopened and relisted for further input following a request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Request. I'm the creator of the article, and I've purposely declined myself from commenting. WP:AFD and Wikipedia itself seems to have ever-so declining numbers of volunteers as evidenced by this discussion. As no one cares to comment about this, and I don't think relisting this would work, if ever WP:CONSENSUS is to remove this from mainspace, I'd request for it to be draftified, then delete the link as if it shows up as a redlink. Ergo, no redirects, but the content is saved somewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have some opinions for Redirection and an editor advocating Draftification. No consensus has been reached yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 7 March 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Pomona, Washington

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

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

The article claims the community formed in 1885, and was renamed in 1908. Consistently there are no newspaper articles about Pomona the community in the 1890s. During the 1900's when the Yakima county grange movement is getting going there is one mention of Pomona station, and couple in regard to Pomona grange district. Most mentions through 1910 are of Pomona Heights, and Pomona pumps. More than a few for Pomona Kansas, and Pomona, CA.

After 1910, references to a local place referred to simply as Pomona begin to appear, but are non specific as to it's nature. In 1912 and article appears that shows it to be a farming district. (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald/52082371/) Same as it was in 1909 (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-as-a-district-and-gran/141165563/). Going forward the mentions become all about Pomona grange district. If this was ever a community there is no evidence of it. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The Washington Historical Quarterly specifically describes it as a station, not a town: [7]. All other mentions found were passing. There is currently a Pomona Road and a Pomona View trailer park in the area, but no "community" evident. I lived in the area for a while and never heard anyone refer to Pomona as a place, FWIW. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Question - @James.folsom:, your original prod indicated East Selah and Pamona are same place so I deprodded and suggested this should be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington that was already in progress. Do we no longer believe this is the case? ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  One of the Wikipedia articles said Selah and Pamona was the same. The newspaper article said East Seleh and Pomona were the same. That is the only evidence of them being the same thing. Mostly I don't know how to combine them, and I didn't see why it mattered. So I didn't bother to figure it out. If somebody wants to do it's fine with me, but I just don't understand why it matters. James.folsom (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  It matters because if they are the same and the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington is keep, we should merge or redirect Pomona, Washington to East Selah, Washington. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  So how do we get them merged? James.folsom (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is a mostly manual process. See WP:MERGE. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was going through the census records to run down the validity of SportingFlyers sources for East Selah. The Census maps have Pomona separate from East Selah. The Wikipedia article claims Pomona grew up around the train station that was named Selah, and later renamed Pomona, while the newspaper said Pomona station used to be known as East Selah station. I think that the east Selah train station was renamed Pomona, and that the rural areas around the station were referred to through the association with the station. I've found no evidence that a town existed. The 19th century areas of East Selah and Pomona are however clearly different from the 20th century areas that share these names. So are they the same, probably yes and no depending on if your talking about today or the 19th century. In the the 19th century they were train stations, in the 20th they are rural areas that echo the names of old stations. So I don't think it matters whether they were AFD together or not. James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a proposal to Merge or Redirect this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Safest would be keep due to lack of consensus. Merge to East Selah, Washington is also acceptable since that looks like it will survive its AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  The East Selah in that article is unrelated to the East Selah Train that was renamed to Pomona. James.folsom (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State (1944) on p. 465 notes the railroad station, the population of 37, and that it was named after the Roman goddess of fruit. This is not the same community as East Selah - it obviously pre-dates the freeway but appears to be the other side. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Your source is not readily available, if you know of a digital source for it let us know. What I know about that source is that it was published by the WPA from information collected in the 1930s. Therefore, I have checked every US census from before Washington was a state until 1950. The US Census never recorded anyone living in a place called Pomona. Without being able to examine your source, I put forward that the US Census is a more reliable source about where people live. James.folsom (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  The source is on Google Books. You're dismissing a source because you haven't seen it, which is ridiculous - it was written by the US Government. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  No because I hadn't seen it, and because it contradicts a much more reliable source. James.folsom (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Ahh, got a good link to the book "Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State" its the 1941 printing -->https://www.google.com/books/edition/Washington/I-okAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Pomona This is the only good source I've seen that talks about Pomona the place. The section of the book that mentions Pomona is a collection of driving tours. The author was basically driving along Washington State roads and describing what he saw along the way. This stretch with Pomona begins on pg 263, and Pomona is 50 miles into the tour on pg 465. I read a little of the book, and its clear the author is just assuming that every train station that he sees is a town. No explanation of how the author comes up with the population numbers. Probably just by chatting with people he met there. Regardless the US census is a more reliable source for what places existed, and this place is not on any of those.James.folsom (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm satisfied by presented secondary sources this was once a small populated place and so meets GNG and GEOLAND. There's a fair amount of presentism in the nomination and comments; for example, the nominator's admitted original synthesis of contemporary US Census information (a primary source) demonstrates a misunderstanding of how rural (often migrant) communities clustered during that era. For the record, offline sources may certainly be utilized, and in this case might be required. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  There haven't been any secondary sources presented yet. That book is a primary because it's written as the author experienced it, and the mention of Pomona is in passing so it's not even significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (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 Film Development Board as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Chiranjibi Guragain

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

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

No indication of notability.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment -- Malformed nomination given that "no indication of notability" is actually not a deletion criterion. Central and Adams (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG/WP:N guidelines. CSMention269 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Film Development Board. Seems to be an administrative officer. One of the reliable source describes his work, but I think it is just an administrative work and not his individual contribution. There are no in-depth coverages. nirmal (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2024 (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.