Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 17 - Wikipedia

Article Images

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Adela

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

Stats stub on a footballer with no clear evidence to support a WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC pass. The best sources that I can find are Nation 1 and Nation 2, both from the same newspaper and both only mentioning Adela once in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are 250 million other footballers like him, I don't see how he stands out. Obviously we can't have 250 million articles about each of them. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agavi

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the same reason it was deleted in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The version before the last delete had a lot more information, as does the German language version of the page today, but no independent sources to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 11:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Town (brothel)

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

This fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There are six sources on the page, which include papers of record, so these are WP:RS but per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, the articles cited are primary sources, and primary sources do not count towards notability. What has not been established is any reason why this brothel is notable and the subject of significant secondary coverage, and not just another brothel. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles like Childs, Kevin (21 June 1991), "Birthday brothel celebrates legality", The Age and Barrowclough, Nikki (29 June 1991), "$ex inc", Good Weekend (The Age) are more than just news and the latter mentions a review in a Japanese magazine Themis. Ormonde, Tom (13 July 1990), "Japanese lust after city's new image", The Age is about that review. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these. Childs (1991) writes about the first birthday of legality. This falls squarely in primary source territory. It mentions a new promotions manager, and that must raise some questions about independence. But yes, definitely a primary source. Barrowclough (1991) writes an editorial 8 days after the newspaper ran an article mentioning the new promotions manager. Again, there might be questions about independence here, but the piece remains a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Do you have a link for (Ormonde, 1990) so I can take a look at that one?

The real question is still: what makes this brothel actually notable? What is the encyclopaedic article on the subject meant to be about? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think Sirfurboy🏄 is putting undue emphasis on the primary news issue, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Its written about (and notable) because it's a large, long-standing and well-known place in a highly prominent position on one of Melbourne's main streets, which is also pretty unusual. Boneymau (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  PRIMARYNOTBAD is saying that primary sources can be useful in an article when used appropriately. The point here is not that we cannot use a primary source, but that they do not count towards demonstrating notability. The relevant guideline is WP:SIRS. This says:
  Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
  ...
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is advocating delete. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have changed my vote to reflect what I mean. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources are not indepth coverage of the brothel and fail WP:SIGCOV eg stories on sex workers. The first sentence is refbombed with 5 sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for further input regarding whether the sources meet SIGCOV so a consensus can form either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with LibStar's assessment. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurumin

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced and perhaps not notable for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. As far as I can tell the Portuguese article is also not sourced. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Brazil. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is Spanish Wikipedia article which has some sources, but they are either primary or from distrowatch.com which I think is user-generated (if you make your own Linux distribution, you can propose to list it there). Quick Google search showed some random dead blogs and merchandise. I believe that this Linux distribution is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I, too, couldn't find any independent sources. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical WP:MILL distribution. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 American Premier League

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

This tournament does not have enough coverage to warrant a specific season article, as the season article does not pass WP:GNG. Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable international and former international players are competing, that doesn't make the season itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United States of America. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The league is sanctioned by the ICC and the USA Cricket.^[1] Vikas265 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which are demonstrations that this season article passes WP:GNG. Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only "name" players involved are former internationals who no longer play in top-class cricket. This tournament is really nothing more than an exhibition event. Admittedly, the organisers are trying to generate US interest in cricket but that does not mean a season of second- or even third-rate competition deserves an article which is well below the WP:GNG standard. Batagur baska (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable tournament. No matter which mercenaries... players take part, it doesn't make notability inheritable. The tournament also carries no status, so in an ideal world it shouldn't even feature on this site. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the arguments given above. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 06:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Premier League as a WP:ATD. Nothing here to indicate this meets the WP:GNG on its own. User:Let'srun 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not sure the suggested redirect is a suitable WP:ATD as there is no season information in the parent article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Trow

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

Non-notable local radio presenter. Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another CV article about a local radio DJ. Nothing but interviews and passing mentions on a search. Just having appeared on the radio isn't a marker of notability. Flip Format (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How long does someone have to be active to be notable? He has worked in radio for more than 30 years, yet you still think he is not notable? There is no issue here about notability so this article should therefore be kept. Rillington (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a question of how long somebody has been "active", it's a question of the quality of the sourcing that can be shown to externally validate his significance. That is, it isn't demonstrated by sourcing the article to his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own present or former employers as proof that he exists — it's demonstrated by sourcing the article to journalism about him, in third-party media outlets other than his own employers, and/or books that weren't self-published by his own employers, as proof that his work has been externally validated as important by people without a vested interest in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBASIC. No significant coverage found, I did find this but it's a routine announcement about the subject to be broadcasting live from a market. This interview is not going to satisfy notability guidelines either. ~ Tails Wx 19:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, radio personalities are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but this features absolutely none of the WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him that it would take to bridge the chasm between existence and notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge all‎ as suggested by OwenX. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Montevideo

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

Another round of embassy spam, articles that reduplicate ones on bilateral relations but say nothing about their purported subject. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unnecessary content forks of bilateral relations articles. Created in a spree of content fork. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article. Owen× ☎ 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Cypriot embassy, which is notable for violence in 1964 [1] and 1974 [2][3]. Mach61 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge, having a hard time finding non-primary sources. 17:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article as originally proposed by @OwenX. FactFindersEnigma (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article as originally proposed by @ बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. There is no support for deletion, but the "keep" opinions are unconvincing in light of applicable policies and guidelines. There is therefore no consensus either way. Sandstein 11:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Prevention Trials Network

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

Seems completely promotional material and only primary source coverage - all in-article sources are either HPTN or clinicaltrials.gov links to studies ran by HPTN. According to XTools, Emillerfhi360 (talk · contribs) has 85% article ownership, an account with no edits outside the article over a five year period, who has potential undisclosed COI, and was cautioned on the article's talk page. Not to justify the AfD, but this has a huge amount of in-body external links and overlinking, I am surprised it was not picked up by an automated tool.

Searching for independent sources turned up:

- [4], non signficant coverage

- [5], not independent, as Eric Miller is the HPTN press contact ([6])

There are plenty of sources which cite HPTN studies, eg. [7], but I cannot find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage.

Courtesy ping: @Emillerfhi360 Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure This organization has probably spent about US$1 billion on its programs. In the field of medical research orgs often avoid the media. I am not sure that this org meets WP:N. Much of the coverage mentioning this org is about its research and programs. I am sure that most of the content here is promotional and if this article is to be kept, then it would benefit from 1) having all promotional or self-published citations deleted then 2) deleting all content without citations. I think the text remaining may be 3-5 sentences. If there is appetite for deleting content, then I support that. I suspect that we could find at least a couple of sources covering the org based on how much money it consumed over decades. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HIV Prevention Trials Network has made robust contributions to the field of HIV prevention. Since its establishment it has conducted over 78 trials, enrolling more than 172,000 study participants, and published over 800 papers. I think the topic is notable. Rodgers V (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: their studies are often cited in top peer-reviewed aggregators such as Nature and The Lancet, as well in secondary sources. Owen× ☎ 15:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above, there is scientific documentation intertwined with the organization. Svartner (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing the keep comments, I would like to mention the essay section WP:SOURCESEXIST. It does not matter how many studies the org publishes, there need to be at least two sources meeting WP:GNG and ideally WP:NORG about the organisation itself - specifically, they need to cover the organisation with significant coverage. Unless we are inclined to invoke WP:IAR here, of course. Also, quoting the guideline WP:ORGSIG: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Note the related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microbicide Trials Network, the reasoning for nomination I used there is similar. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Walker (journalist)

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

Nominated for 3 reasons:

As a sort of "mercy killing". The person doesn't want an article about them, as they have said there multiple times.
Wikipedia's WP:SIGCOV policy says that the coverage needs to address the topic "directly and in detail". Discounting the citations that are connected to Rob, we are left with these citations: HBR, QZ, Design Observer, Salon, Chicago Tribune and several NYT articles. Most of these are fleeting mentions of Mr Walker, and the remainder are focussed on the topics covered by individual books (which already have their own articles) rather than Mr Walker himself. So I don't believe that the coverage addresses Mr Walker "directly and in detail", as required.
Aside from any Wikipedia policy, I don't believe there is any benefit of having an article which is basically a copy of Mr Walker's CV.

If anyone is wondering who I am, I have no connection to Mr Walker, I just read the article and thought I would try to help. My only other edits have been a few small additions (nothing relating to Mr Walker) from an IP address.

Regards, Capitan Farmhouse (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR — Walker's work has been the primary subject of multiple independent RS pieces. As a side note, Walker's linked interview in which he's not crazy about having a page here is from 2015 and is ambivalent at best: I don’t need the page removed, he said, but mostly he just didn't want it to be incorrect. Retswerb (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also per WP:AUTHOR. He definitely meets the criteria of having created a well-known that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:AUTHOR really seems like it hits notability stuff and the article wraps up on a decent "Well I guess this is okay" note. I know Walker vaguely and I get where he is coming from (my own Wikipedia article is out of date!) but I think the response to that is to make his page more accurate and timely. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the photo has been changed and content updated (corrected, I think?) since he wrote that article (in 2015!), and he seems to meet the general notability and references requirements. Dotx3 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rushaniya Safina

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2010, 2018, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Criteria already adopted in others similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lianozovo

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

A disambig page with only two items is invalid per WP:MOSDAB - Altenmann >talk 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': A disambiguation page with two entries is perfectly valid, where neither of them is the obvious Primary Topic. PamD 08:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PamD. Also, I'd like to add that Russian disambiguation page has 6 entries. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just merged Wikidata, so that now this disambiguation page has links to three other languages. It is weird that there was two Wikidata for Lianozovo disambiguation page, I had to first resolve conflicts with descriptions in multiple languages and only then it allowed me to merge. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid DAB page. Absolutely no need for deletion. The nom apparently misunderstood what is stated at MOS:DAB which indicates that A disambiguation page with only two meanings is not necessary if one of them is the primary topic for that term, and since neither of the entries listed is the primary topic then the page is completely necessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PamD and CycloneYoris. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Nobody supports the very perfunctory deletion nomination. Sandstein 11:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Humic Substances Society

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing and recognized organization in the field [8]; among other things, they maintain and provide a set of standard reference materials (IHSS standards) that are widely used in soil research [9]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Elmidae is right to keep this, but I'd point out that Humic acids are the gardener's equivalent of complementary medicine, a thing where products whose composition isn't even known to the producer are offered for sale with promises of enhanced plant growth based on extremely scanty evidence and no scientific basis. Like complementary medicine, everyone involved in humic acids is very vocal, but the terminology is more impressive than the underlying facts. We should keep this organisation not on the basis that it supports important science, but on the basis that it's generated evidence of notability in a field that gets written-about. Elemimele (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about participating in these, feel free to delete my comment if I am not meant to say anything.

I also don't know if humic acids being (allegedly) unfounded or under-evidenced as useful in gardening really undermines the scientific credentials or focus of the International Humic Substances Society. But from what I see of the research they support, I'll go ahead and mildly doubt it. It doesn't seem like they are restricted to supporting research into if whichever acid helps whatever garden crop, and instead include a wide range of topics about humic substances.

In general, I find even short records of professional societies to be very useful for a popular encyclopedia to cover. Even historically, paper book encyclopedias would keep track of these things because it's an incredibly useful resource for someone - especially a student or any young person - to run into. It records the landscape of a profession. Sometimes it helps underline the mere existence of an otherwise obscure profession or specialization. And this is an international society. It is not a 20 person club of friends with similar interests. It appears referenced directly in many academic articles. And it continues to have conferences (is not defunct). Not to be rude to people interested in other things, but I can think of a lot I would delete instead. Soil is what we depend on for life as much as water and air. Whatever is going on in the field is particularly notable to me.

The article should have more sources, for sure. It would also be good to have it better integrated into the larger Wiki and linked to from more soil science related articles. And should be re-written to be a little in the first paragraph to be less ad-copy-ish. I may just do that small part, then people can undo it if it is worse.

About potential other sources, here's some:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/4/1044 - "[...]we studied the standardized samples of HS of the International Humic Substances Society (IHSS)." ... could be used as an independent source to show and characterize an activity of the society in supporting soils research
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-26398-3 - more of the above
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004313541530021X - etc
https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/suwannee-river-natural-organic-matter-isolation-of-the-2r101n-ref
https://chembioagro.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40538-021-00229-4 - there's actually quite a lot of these studies where somehow it's the IHSS that provides the materials - I think that should be covered but lack the technical background in this area to say for sure or to say exactly how it should be done
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=594703604&hl=en&sxsrf=AM9HkKlmO1zdHuPzIE9DqtqzXFXVRISa1Q:1704008925634&q=inauthor:%22International+Humic+Substances+Society.+International+Meeting%22&tbm=bks - sources from within the group's conferences, useful

I might even be able to add this source, as it's less technical:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x

^^ Chin, YP., McKnight, D.M., D’Andrilli, J. et al. Identification of next-generation International Humic Substances Society reference materials for advancing the understanding of the role of natural organic matter in the Anthropocene. Aquat Sci 85, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x

So, unsurprisingly, I vote Keep (if I get a vote) MariahKRogers (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Choice of Magic

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

Article has been unsourced since November 2015. A quick search through Google and Google Scholar have not offered reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. Though they aren't as long as I hoped, it has been reviewed in The Best in Children's Books: The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1966-1972, The Courier-Journal and The Spectator (by Isabel Quigly). There's also a few more fairly short reviews on newspapers.com, and a few reviews hidden behind snippet views on Google Books. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three reviews presented by ARandomName123 are sufficient to demonstrate NBOOK/GNG. —siro χ o 03:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Miss Tennessee#Winners. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Lawson

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained significant sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Tennessee#Winners as an alternative to deletion. The subject has not received sustained coverage and the subject is also only notable for one event. ~ Tails Wx 02:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agent 47

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

Video game character of dubious notability. Reception is limited to listicles and starts unimpressively with "In 2012, GamesRadar+ ranked Agent 47 as the 47th...". My BEFORE failed to find anything useful other than plot summaries; academic reception is limited to passing mentions in an undergraduate paper and one book (note: I could only access snippets which don't suggest SIGCOV is met). Per WP:ATD-R, a redirect to Hitman (franchise) will suffice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me personally, I feel 47 as a character is too notable to be delisted, as he seems to be generally well recognized within gaming as a whole. This doesn't mean his article can't be edited with better citations to other articles discussing him and the critical reception around him, as well as a complete removal of any academic studies of his character (he's no Isaac Clarke or Adam Jensen when it comes to this). This is just my suggestion, and you don't have to do it. Chiefmister (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hitman (franchise): Currently, the Hitman (franchise) article has no descriptions of the games' characters, including 47. While I agree that the sources here don't establish notability, largely because they're listicles, and I haven't uncovered any further sources, several of the sources are from generally reliable publications and can be used to draft a description of 47 to be included in the article on the franchise. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I appreciate the sources identified in this discussion, I still think that this should be merged. As @Kung Fu Man has noted, the PC Gamer, Polygon, and PCGamesN articles are all basically game reviews with brief descriptions of 47. I don't think any of the listicles establish notability, including The Telegraph article cited by @OwenX. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says that once something hits mainstream news, it's notable. The book that @Zxcvbnm cited uses 47 as an example for how the player navigates the game, rather than a description of the character himself. In all, I think the sources identified amount to a significant amount of trivial coverage, rather than a sufficient amount of significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge...for now While my gut is telling me there should be more for 47 online, even looking at a 2018 version of it with a larger reception section shows it was all lists. I feel too WP:TNT should also come into play here: what's here, much like early Pokemon articles, is mostly uncited and useless, and if sources do manifest whatever editor works on it will likely be starting over from near scratch anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A was a bit surprised that this got nom'ed for afd. But, after some BEFORE search by other peeps above; probs not enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agent 47's a clearly notable character. He got a full PC Gamer article, Polygon article, and a PCGamesN article. At bare minimum this is enough to confer clear WP:GNG on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I do feel there is some commentary in those first two articles Zx, they feel primarily about the games and related gameplay. Keep in mind this is me skimming through them after only being up a few hours, but arguing they're full articles on the character feels like a misnomer. And that ends up another problem with Agent 47: a lot of his commentary is hard to separate from commentary about how the game plays.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He also got an article in The Ringer about his character too. Vox is considered a WP:RS, even though they also own Polygon, it's different enough to be a distinct site and source. The articles may be about Agent 47's gameplay, but they still make it obvious they are referring to him rather than just the game in general. I am convinced he is notable given these sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. What do you think about the TNT argument though? I'm really convinced what's here isn't usable, and after this many years of being in this state (and until recently a much WORSE state), I don't see it viably being an article without being started over from zero with what's there. And yes, WP:NODEADLINE is a thing but at some point you have to question if it's better to let someone potentially wanting to work on the thing undo the redirect on their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT doesn't make sense to me here, as no part of the article is technically "bad" besides the reception. The reception needs to be rewritten and current reception sources mostly or entirely discarded, but otherwise it can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per KFM, I'd like to see someone do something with those sources, which seem to be rather freely written (blog / social media style rather than academic) before I'd consider withdrawing this nom. Nice job finding those sources, though. Maybe this can be rescued. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found yet another SIGCOV here, in a book about villains in media. It talks about how players rationalize playing as a villain, giving Agent 47 as an example of a character who was created to be the perfect assassin, thus making it easier for players to "justify" what they are doing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like a consensus to Merge but recent comments offer some new sources that should be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, evaluating sources found by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The Vader, Voldemort and Other Villains source is excellent secondary SIGCOV. That book, with PCGamesN and The Ringer are a solid three (Noting, The Ringer is an SBNation site with a proper masthead and the author is a professional journalist who has written for many RS). PC Gamer and Polygon are helpful as well—though Polygon seems to rely a bit on quotes from a creative director. This meets WP:GNG. —siro χ o 04:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage by reliable mainstream news such as the Telegraph swayed me away from my initial tendency to merge such articles. There is more than enough verifiable information here, and independent notability is well established. Once it hits mainstream news, it can no longer be dismissed as "cruft". Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above JM (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, seems to have plenty of analysis discussing this character in specific.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's some academic coverage of Agent 47. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources and I think the page is in somewhat of a bad state but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and the TNT arguement should be avoided Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources that ZX brought up appear to be sufficient material to warrant Agent 47 keeping a separate article. NegativeMP1 19:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Scientific Club

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of this organization. Thenightaway (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources I could find provide trivial coverage of the club's participation in events. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a search for النادي العلمي القطري (Arabic transliteration of the club's name) on Google News turns up coverage, including this article by Al Sharq and this article by Al Arab. Left guide (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not independent reliable sources. These are government outlets reporting on the activities on a government organization in a country with no press freedom. Thenightaway (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth, significant coverage in independent sources. Neutrality^talk 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2022

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

Like the 2020 and 2021 awards, the 2022 awards list is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of the TV Tonight website itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. At best, redirect to TV Tonight. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, Lists, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R. Happily888 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge/Redirect to, I assume, TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years shouldn't have articles either. I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables (and more if others decided to continue adding on), which is undue. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons discussed above. I don't see benefit of a merge for the same WP:UNDUE reasons already highlighted. Similarly, I don't feel a redirect would serve as a useful navigation aid for a reader, given the main article isn't offering information on specific years and the title is closely related to the main article's name anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bungle. Agletarang (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2021

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

Like the 2020 and 2022 awards, it is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, Lists, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R. Happily888 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant enough to keep here. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Merge/Redirect, I assume, to TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years should not have articles either. I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables, which is undue. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I set out in the 2022 list afd, WP:UNDUE per above and unnecessary as a redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunneville, California

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

Contested PROD. This is an interesting one: The site is actually a restaurant-bar: [10]; it was once a rural saloon that became informally known as Dunneville because of a local rancher, James Dunne, who was a regular there ([11]). Later a Dunneville Estates housing development was built nearby (Ref. 2 in the article). So we have a stub article because GNIS somehow picked up an in-joke about an alcoholic farmer who spent his days at a local tavern. Neither restaurants nor housing developments are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND, and therefore WP:GNG applies. I would argue this article does not reach that bar, as the few references I can find are about the restaurant and not the "community". This is just a rural intersection with an old bar, a new housing development just to the north, and what looks like a wood chip yard (see satellite image of the coordinates). Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, following up on that newspaper article tells us that the Dunne ranch is hugely notable. Amusingly, I might also have got there by following up on Viola Dunne via the usual Arcadia Publishing book route. Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable historic crossroads and stage station and meeting place in an otherwise rural area; indigenous village in vicinity etc. jengod (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~Delete - Dunneville, California clearly never existed, ~~move article to Dunneville Ranch or similar, or merge if such article exists. The bar can become a section of the this newly titled article.~~ The existing article is about a nonnotable, never existing place and WP:GNG is clear that these must be deleted or merged. James.folsom (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article about a former place on the map. Appears to pass GNG and I don't see any reason to delete this well-written article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's not clear where the name really comes from but it's reasonably clear that there was no settlement here by this or another name. If there is felt to be a need to have an article on the ranch, it can be created on its own. Mangoe (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per article improvement. WP:PRIMARY may still be an issue. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's hard to see any consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been a great deal of improvements since this article was nominated. It's been turned into a fairly substantive sourced article now. Nothing like it was when this nomination started. Looks really good now. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Yolo County, California as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronda, California

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

Back to the California bulk-creations. No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=b1e243f82f9d569792e98834cc4986b5 Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable railroad waypoint, no evidence this was ever a settlement of any kind. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a 1913 tourist guide telling us that these (Ronda, Zamora, Brentona) were all railroad stops for local farmers. The difference is that there's a Zamora Historical Research Society that appears to have written a little bit about Zamora/Black's Station. ☺ (Our article is sourced to "Mast family" at one point, though.) Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Zamora has its own exit from I5 and a couple of businesses, whereas (for what it's worth) I had never heard of Ronda until today, despite having grown up in the area. It disappeared from maps in 1915 and even then had no buildings in USGS topos....this is a no-brainer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Yolo county California article. WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. Non-legally recognized places such as Ronda, must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable. In particular Ronda fails Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED, I also believe that previous discussion indicates that Ronda fails WP:NRV as well. policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into the article that covers the notable administrative area that contains it. I'm willing to do the merge, but let me know as I might not be paying attention. James.folsom (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yolo County, California: per above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marty, California

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

No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name next to the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=1c6fd750f09a49579337f04f012ceff1 Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable waypoint on the railroad. The Martys were a prominent Yolo County family 100 years ago (per newspaper search); the spot was probably just named for the landowner. Not a "settlement" by any information I can find. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No "probably" about it. This is Antone Marty's cattle feed railroad stop. It's in T.J. Gregory's History of Yolo County, California. But Antone Marty is the actual subject of the History. The Arcadia book Anglicizes him as Tony Marty. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move, I think this is another good opportunity for good. Move the article to new name appropriate for the Marty's or their ranch and this place then becomes mentioned there. While this would be more work, it's preferable to just deleting. In any case this is a train station in yolo county, it is not a city in yolo county. QED the title/url location is misleading. So at minimum it needs a name change or deletion. I support either. Because if anybody ever creates the article on the Marty's, then the train station will likely be mentioned anyway.James.folsom (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you seek this article to be moved, redirected or merged, you have to specify the target article or your proposal will have much less weight. Closers shouldn't be guessing what you want.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncle G has accurately stated what this location actually was -- a railway whistle stop. In its description of the Marty ranch, History of Yolo County, California says: shipping facilities are provided by the Marty station on the new Sacramento and Woodland electric railroad, a switch on the ranch affording direct communcation 1. The brevity of the current article doesn't really give anyone a leg up on writing an article about Antone Marty, so I don't think a move is appropriate. Jfire (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to indicate this was ever any sort of "settlement"; this was the name for a railway whistle stop for a nearby farm, not a "settlement" of any kind per User:Uncle G. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Even putting notability aside, WP:V is a core content policy, and "delete" is the only possible closure when that threshold is not met (see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS). I will undelete the article on request if reliable sources verifying Beck's existence as a town can be located. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beck, Oklahoma

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

Notability not established with substantive sources – neither source provided is a WP:RS, not even in GNIS Reywas92^Talk 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map with Beck on it
http://www.mygenealogyhound.com/maps/oklahoma-maps/ok-mcintosh-county-oklahoma-1922-map.html#
Keep until further evidence is provided that it wasn’t a town at all. DannonCool (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just provided that evidence. There's not even a dot for Beck on that rubbish small scale map. It's labelling a quadrangle, like the other all-uppercase names are. Your only other sources are a GNIS regurgitator that explicitly says that it doesn't know anything and has unreliable sources on that very page and a WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, for all that the world knows. This isn't in either of the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, moreover. How can you read a WWW page that says that it is unreliable and doesn't know anything and then use it as a source? Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The upper-case names are not labelling quadrangles, several of them are in fact overlapping on several quadrangles. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't keep until somebody proves a place doesn't exist. We don't create articles until substantial, reliable sources prove that it does. Fails GNG for lack of sources. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Lists of ghost towns in the United States. Also, please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghost towns. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about towns that don't exist, but once upon a time did. Lists that show hundreds of ghost towns in a state, and also stand-alone articles for ghost towns on the lists. It is not a requirement for a stand-alone article on a ghost town to also be on a list, but it helps. Beck is on the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma - and it is appropriate to have a stand-alone article on ghost towns like Beck. I have added the project banner for WikiProject Ghost towns to the talk page. — Maile (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is that since the same editor who wrote this article also added it to a list article, sourced to that very same WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, we should keep it. That's not really putting reliable sourcing into practice. If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them. That's because there never has been any such town. As I said above: it's a survey rectangle. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not add the ghost town to the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma article. DannonCool (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apoplogize. That was a mis-reading of the edit history on my part. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. It’s completely fine it was just a simple misunderstanding. DannonCool (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's clear that part up. Beck was added in 2007 by IvoShandor (talk · contribs). Uncle G Have you been there? That would be the ultimate proof of your assertion that this does not exist. I've been editing on Wikipedia over 15 years, and have learned that any editor who accuses others of fabricating content, needs to verify their own accusations. You keep saying nothing is there. How do you know this? In reply to your comment, "If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them. That's because there never has been any such town." NEVER been there? Never, ever? What is YOUR source? Quite frankly, I'd find it rather odd that sources would claim something doesn't exist. How would they happen to be commenting on something that doesn't exist? — Maile (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have already said twice now that the sources do not comment on this. Because, to spell it out yet again, there are no sources claiming that this exists. There's a self-submission WWW site that is not a reliable source for that very reason, and nothing else. You have the burden of proof exactly backwards. I don't have to perform personal investigation in violation of our no original research policy. You have to provide a source demonstrating your claim. And since I know that this is a township survey rectangle and not a town, from the very map presented even, I can confidently state that you won't be able to do so. I mentioned that you'll have no joy with the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, above, but feel free to actually put the legwork in and look at them yourself. You've evidently made zero attempt to check out sources, otherwise you wouldn't be making such addled arguments as "please see the list articles" or "what is YOUR source?" for a statement that something is not in sources. The rest of the world doesn't have to prove this negative. You, Maile66 have the burden of actually putting the effort in and proving a positive. Show us the page number in the Ghost Towns book. It will be a non-existent ghost page number between Avery and Beer City. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think the Morris book has all of the ghost towns that exist in Oklahoma in them. The book even has Talala in it. Talala is definitely very alive. The town has 200 people. I’m just saying the book may not have captured all of the towns or be accurate in some parts. Nothing can be fully accurate or precise. I have the physical copy of the book and although Beck is not in there, he may have not meant to not add towns. He might’ve never heard of Beck. Bethel, Grant County is a different story. If I did a little more research, I would’ve came to the conclusion the town was a post office. Not a ghost town. That’s wrong on my behalf. Also, “ghosttowns.com” seemed reliable at first due the fact that everyone was using it in the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma page. If anything, we need to double down on our research and find other sources besides that very unreliable, user-submitted website. DannonCool (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maile66, you're asking us to prove a negative. That's impossible and it isn't how Wikipedia works. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo. The editor above has declared that no such ghost town exists in the area stated. I'm asking him what he bases his comment on. He's been very firm that there is absolutely nothing there. The comment indicates he has information to backup his assertion. I'm just asking what that is. Let's say, for instance, that someone lists a town name Jerico in some state. You tell me no such town exists in that state. Wouldn't you need to have knowledge of that state to tell me Jerico does not exist there? — Maile (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- WeirdNAnnoyed is absolutely correct. Until substantial, secondary sources exist, and article can not exist in mainspace. There is no requirement for anyone to "prove" that something does not exist, even if it were logically possible (which, again as WnA points out, it's NOT). Anyone supporting the article's continued existence needs to provide good RS (see WP:THREE for a good essay on that). Until that happens, the only possible policy-based decision is deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Last1in, GNG requires sourcing (to the standard, level of coverage, and numerousness outlined in our P&G's) to be able to retain the article. It is not up to people advocating delete to prove that something doesn't exist, as a) proving a negative is difficult if not impossible, but more importantly b) that isn't the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Consensus exists to expand the article instead of deleting or draftifying. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disownment

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

Basically an extended DICDEF, topped off with a small detail sourced from a dead link. Could possibly be merged into a broader article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. This topic has received significant coverage in books and periodical/encyclopedia articles. A search for "disownment"+parental in Google Books brings up many sources such as this book. According to this encyclopedia article on (parental) "Disownment", there are legally recognised forms of (parental) disownment. From there one can find, for example, this book chapter on the public process of disownment among the Tanala of Ikongo. There are articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about parental or family disownment. [The concept of "disownment" in Quakerism satisfies GNG in of itself. I am not sure whether this form of disownment, and parental disownment, are parts of a single topic, or whether they should be treated separately.] The article can be expanded with material that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. James500 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here that's usable; why not WP:TNT? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". That is clearly the case here. James500 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about WP:DRAFTIFY? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article should stay in the mainspace. The article does not satisfy criteria 2 or 3b of WP:DRAFTIFY. The article is not a mere definition. Much of the content is now referenced, and much of the rest appears to be WP:BLUE that should be straightforward to reference. James500 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a strong, encyclopaedic subject with extensive RS to back it up, none of which show in the article. I found extensive coverage for both LGBT+ and Quakers on gScholar, as well as plenty of WP:DEPTH and case study analysis. I will try to pull my WP:THREE together within the next day or so, but this looks like a WP:DINC problem. I would accept TNT as an AtD, but I'd rather see someone adopt the article into draftspace. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see two viable AtD's here: either WP:DRAFTIFY the article or WP:TNT it and add sections on disownment to the existing articles on Quakerism and LGBT issues. Any thoughts? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an authority on the field, and came here for information. This is a useful topic, so I think it should be kept. Yugan Talovich (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I believe this is an important topic that people should know about. 2607:9880:1628:20:65A4:8604:2232:262C (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion, it would be helpful if the changes to the article since nomination were assessed. It seems like this article has gone beyond a dictionary definition. Right now, I don't see support for Deletion but let's keep this discussion open another few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and expand. The concept dates back to the earliest legal systems, and is covered by many inheritance law textbooks. The French language wiki has more about the relevant laws in France, Switzerland and Quebec, and the Japanese language wiki has useful information about the history and legal aspects in Japan. Also pinging @BD2412: for his expertise here. Owen× ☎ 01:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am no expert on disownment, but the concept exists legally, and goes beyond disinheritance (which basically means cutting someone out of a will) towards complete severance of familial legal obligations. Legally, disownment can also run both ways — a child can disown their parents through an effort to obtain legal emancipation. There has to be a mechanism, however. Standing up at Thanksgiving dinner and yelling "I disown you" may perform the function socially, but any legal sort of disownment would have to be accomplished through some kind of court proceeding. I'm sure that more can be found on that. BD2412 T 02:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article hasn't yet covered Quintillian's abdicatio or the laws trying to prevent disownment in Edo period Japan, I'm going to say that that this is a stub with scope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above JM (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]