Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 6

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. No support for deletion, nor for the unconventional redirect proposed. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of comedy anime (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)

Broad-category list, better serverd as a category. (And already is: Category:Comedy anime and manga.) Not notable as a group, so fails WP:NLIST. mikeblas (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists are more useful than categories, since more information can be shown. The rules state that both can exist, you should not delete one because you like the other better. Dream Focus 16:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of the items are notable thus there is no serious issue. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to per WP:TOOSOON. This list is lacking sources and is highly subjective to WP:NPOV issues regarding what is considered as comedy by whom. I also wouldn't oppose this being sent to Draft or Userfy if someone is willing to work on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87, what redirect target article are you proposing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry... I meant the comedy anime category. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NOTDUPE invalidates both the !vote of Knowledgekid87 (Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect), and most of Mikeblas's nomination (It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.). The remainder is invalidated by the very text of WP:NLIST ("One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources") as the subject of comedy anime has been used by a multitude of independent sources that can be found by a websearch[1], [2], [3], etc ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus to Keep this article but editors agree that the article needs serious improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lee Dark (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 is based on interviews or publicity material in which the subject makes various claims of extraordinary musical ability and success. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject for these claims. gnu57 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, and Wales. gnu57 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have just looked on Nexis which I have access to through my university, and there are sources on there for at least part of the article. I'd be happy to go through and resolve the sourcing issues on these pages with those sources (I am going to do this now regardless). It would seem a shame to delete the article with those options around. Flatthew (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly a number of claims in the article are not based in reality, but the article is worth a re-do. There is something here, even if it's obviously not what is outlined. Flatthew (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a number of otherwise reliable publications appear to be taking the subject's claims at face value. The 50,000 albums sold is almost certainly false. The famous relatives are unverifiable. The audio tracks on YouTube attributed to Dark are actually studio recordings by other singers (e.g., [4][5]). I have found no indication that the subject has ever performed live, in any setting. gnu57 10:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an interesting point that otherwise reliable sources interview a subject and take their claims at face value when perhaps they aren’t accurate. I noticed in a Wales on Sunday article I found it was written that she performed with a band called Enigma, but there are a couple bands with that name neither of which list her as a member. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t perform with them. There’s also a CD she released but now that I think about it I couldn’t find it. So while my recommendation was ‘’’keep’’’ based on WP:RS guidance, I do have pause… Nnev66 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage in WP:RS for WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep and improve. I see that there are already edits after the AfD nomination, the article may need further improvement. Sources seem to exist to prove WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement about the adequacy of the sources. An assessment would be helpful of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although some of the claims are not well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Bravo (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 am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Mexican former footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Azarctic (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - found two sources, very quickly, that indicate some form of notability, especially in the realm of Mexican football. This source and this source, which explain how he would make his debut in the Liga MX at age 29 due to the starting goalkeeper's injury, and this source (comes from here), which I think is really strong as a contribution towards WP:GNG. Talks about how he got his shot to play in the first division for the first time at age 29, talks about his past with UAEM and Atlante, and how he was one of a group of players who went from Cancun to Queretaro after a club was rebought. Pinging GiantSnowman as requested, and Azarctic because why not. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Source 1 - nothing towards GNG, Source 2 has zero GNG, source 3 and 4 (the same thing) has 7 lines specifically on Bravo. This is not a GNG pass based on the sources provided. Dougal18 (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that source 3/4 does confer something towards GNG. Here is what it says specifically about him (excluding the title): Eduardo Bravo se convirtió en el nuevo portero de la Liga MX, al debutar la tarde de este sábado en el arco del Querétaro. [...] Alex Diego –necesitado del triunfo para seguir con vida en el Guard1anes 2020– tuvo que acudir a su tercer arquero, Bravo, quien nunca había jugado en Primera División. [...] Formado en las categorías inferiores del Toluca, el tapatío, de 29 años de edad, ha tenido procesos en la Segunda División, con la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, y en 2015 pasó al Atlante. [...] Este portero fue uno de los futbolistas que emigró de Cancún a Querétaro, cuando el grupo inversionista adquirió la franquicia de los Gallos Blancos, durante el verano. En el semestre, Bravo apenas había disputado tres partidos con la Sub-20, en los cuales recibió nueve anotaciones. I'll let you do some Google translate. This content is honestly quite solid. It's five significant, long sentences. Talks about him and there's nothing WP:ROUTINE about it. It goes more than just surface level. This source clearly counts towards GNG, no question about it. It meets all the criteria. Sources 1 and 2 are a bit more shaky, but here's what they say on him: La lesión del guardameta titular, Gil Alcalá, obligó al Querétaro a utilizar a Eduardo Bravo, quien no tenía experiencia en la Primera División. [...] A los 29 años de edad, el portero Eduardo Bravo debutó este sábado en la Primera División con el Querétaro en el duelo ante Necaxa, debido a la lesión del guardameta titular Gil Alcalá, quien sufrió una lesión muscular y estará fuera de actividad de dos a tres semanas. [...] Ante esa situación, el cuerpo técnico encabezado por el estratega Álex Diego no tuvo alternativa que debutar a Bravo. and Gallos de Querétaro debutó este sábado frente a Necaxa al portero mexicano Eduardo Bravo Ávila, de 29 años de edad, para el partido de la Jornada 15 del Guard1anes 2020 BBVA MX. Bravo estará en lugar de Gil Alcalá... Although there is much less true content here, I think that the first source just scrapes by GNG criteria for "significant coverage" (it addresses Bravo directly and in detail, it's NOT just a trivial mention of him). All other criteria is easily passed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougal18: And if that wasn't enough, here is more significant coverage on him. It can be found here. It says Jugador del partido: El debut: De acuerdo a un comunicado de prensa, con 29 años de edad, Eduardo Bravo debutó en la portería de Gallos Blancos, el arquero comenzó su formación en la Sub-20 con la escuadra de Toluca, tuvo un breve paso con la UAEM, para después regresar con los Escarlatas. Para el Apertura 2012, regresó a la UAEM hasta el Clausura 2015 en el Apertura 2015 mudó de equipo, se enfundó con la playera de Atlante y para el Apertura 2020 llegó a reforzar al cuadro queretano. Esta tarde jugó 90 minutos. Once again, this is clearly GNG-passing— it meets all the criteria, from presumed to independent of the subject. It passes the "significant coverage" criteria, most notably. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's one event sourced multiple times. "De acuerdo a un comunicado de prensa" translates as "According to a press release" therefore disqualifying that a source.Dougal18 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a secondary source, independent of the subject. Not disqualifying at all. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the above mentioned sources, all are from the same date so that fails WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Two of the sources are also from the same publication, so the count as one for the purposes of establishing notability. All that said, none of the sources have anything significant on the subject, only that he his making his league debut at the age of 29. It simply isn't enough for a GNG pass. Alvaldi (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All four links are utterly routine transactional reports derived from the same press release and do not count at all towards GNG. The last one is also trivial. As Alvaldi mentions, another requirement of notability is SUSTAINED coverage, and that is objectively failed if all we have are four refactored press announcements from the same day. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the press release. Clearly fails WP:N's requirement for independence, emph mine: It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources brought into the conversation above are not WP:SIGCOV; they are WP:ROUTINE coverage to be expected about a changeup in team rosters, or they are routine match coverage. They don't get us to WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to USATC S200 Class. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TCDD 46201 Class (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 did a search and this seems not to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect into USATC S200 Class. No reason to have a second article just for the Turkish members of this locomotive class. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Liz, while I voted for a merge, I looked at this again today and there are no sources in this article and the sole external link is also present in the target. I'm changing to supporting a redirect. The Turkish class name for these locomotives is at least a plausible search term. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2024 (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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Turkey at the European Athletics Championships with history retained should sourcing eventuate for this to be spun back out. Star Mississippi 02:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey at the 2002 European Athletics Championships (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 did a search and this seems not to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Turkey at the European Athletics Championships. Geschichte (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is potential for this article to be kept if all the non-medalists are added. Usually there are several sources describing how the team was selected, the coaching, any important events that happened en route, etc. For example see Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics which had previously gone through an AfD and was closed as keep. --Habst (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This has not been salvaged like the Guam one; I'm not contesting that this might be a valid entry, but it is not, and redirection is therefore the best option. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, but then the closure should reflect that it's been redirected without bias against recreation. --Habst (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Has been DABbed‎. which functions as a temporary solution as Roy Bateman noted. History is thereunder should the database issue be sufficiently resolved Star Mississippi 02:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diura chronus (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 don't think there's any reason an apparent synonym (even if accepted?) should have its own article. Taking to AfD instead of BLARing for other opinions. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete This is a valid species See here - the databases seem to have been clarified - I will update with a speciesbox and mod. genus page. It may have been me that I wrote "apparent synonym" as a way of flagging the problem: these anomolies sometimes crop up. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - this appears to be a valid species - clarified on 2 databases - I can't find anything elsewhere at the moment. This should not be deleted in any case - better to redirect to genus page with explanation if it turns out not to be valid. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Australia. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ctenomorpha marginipennis. This is a phasmid, and as per Phasmida Species File (to my knowledge the authoritative source on the order) is a synonym for C. marginipennis. Note that the GBIF entry cited above [6] references the same diagnosis as the one cited for the accepted stick insect classification (Gray, 1833) and also cites the PSF. Gray's text clearly places the species as a phasmid [7]; of the very few Scholar hits for the combination [8], not one concerns Plecoptera. I assume that Diura was found to be preoccupied by the stonefly genus and had to be vacated, but whatever - there seems to be no current weight to considering this a valid Plecoptera taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diura - which is a valid genus and there is an explanation of this, with a link to C. marginipennis. I think @Elmidae is correct, but [i] any unsuspecting reader would look to the genus name first and [ii] there is still the anomolous GBIF entry (usually quite reliable) out there. I will put the taxobar on the talk page for future reference. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no, absolutely not. Diura chronus is an accepted synonym of Ctenomorpha marginipennis, and that is where it must redirect. We do not redirect Balaena gibbosa, a synonym for the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus, to the (existing but inapplicable) genus Balaena; we redirect it to the correct species article. GBIF itself cites the phasmid diagnosis. If anything, occurrence in the species list at the Diura page is a GBIF error, and certainly not something we ought to mirror. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be all be true and noone is contesting the fact that it is one (of several) synonyms for C. marginipennis, but evidently this also is a name which starts with "Diura". I think it is quite useful and important to point-out, especially for non-specialists, that these issues with nomenclature do occur ... Roy Bateman (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be served by redirecting the reader to a peripherally related page. Placing a note at Ctenomorpha marginipennis would be the way to do that - if there is good sourcing for details on a reassignment, which I so far have not seen. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Compromise I have re-drafted as disambiguation. I hope we agree that this page should not be deleted and some explanation would be useful (I first came here via genus Diura) - also note it has a Wikidata item. The databases etc. can always be reviewed in future. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments being made for two different Redirect target articles and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third, straightforward option - keep this page as a brief 'disambiguation' (as drafted): at least until the database conflict is cleared-up. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryomassage (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)

Obviously all medical articles should be cited otherwise they could be dangerous if there are any harmful side effects Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to cryotherapy until improved with real references, which do seem to exist. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources added. I can't vouch for the quality of the sources but don't see anything wrong with them at a glance. --Here2rewrite (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to cryotherapy. References do seem to exist however until someone can add those I think it's best to redirect until someone is willing to put in the time to gather said references. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the recent sources added. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Meets WP:GNG although the article does need attention (but: WP:NEXIST). I added a number of references from a variety of academic sources, and reworded parts. Some claims, such as promoting "tissue regeneration", are potentially unfounded and should probably be removed. Some, like "reduc[ing] inflammation", may be accurate but a majority of sources discuss anti-inflammatory effects in the context of cryotherapy more broadly, not cryomassage specifically. Anyway, there do seem to exist enough high-quality reliable sources on this topic.

GhostOfNoMeme 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on whether the sources added by GhostOfNoMeme are sufficient for this to be kept?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that sources have been improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I unbolded this "Keep" since you already stated one above. Either way, this looks to be heading towards a keep consensus. Geschichte (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Masters League T20 (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)

Another mass-produced article on a non-notable OAP cricket league which fails WP:GNG and WP:OFFCRIC. Just because retired players are taking part, doesn't make this inherently notable. All sources are WP:ROUTINE. AA (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. AA (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails OFFCRIC. I think it's a 50/50 call whether this actually fails the low bar of GNG or not, but I'd want to be 100% confident of meeting GNG to outweigh OFFCRIC. Not salted yet in case it does prove to ultimately have a legacy in its aftermath. Aspirex (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Cricket League (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)

Another mass-produced article on a non-notable OAP cricket league which fails WP:GNG and WP:OFFCRIC. Just because retired players are taking part, doesn't make this inherently notable. All sources are WP:ROUTINE. AA (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. AA (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nominator AA, it's true that even after the official "launch", all that's out there is routine coverage with recycled quotes. But seeing as the season starts in three weeks, is it worth draftifying until the season's underway, and see if it gains SIGCOV? Wikishovel (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, as coverage is WP:ROUTINE. I oppose moving to draftspace since the outcome of that will likely be people pushing it back to mainspace without fixing the problems (which has happened for a few of these non notable tournaments and tournament season articles). If in future it did amazingly meet WP:GNG, then and only then should an article exist, but keeping a draft to "see whether it might meet GNG" is not a solution I support, as most similar OAP leagues like this aren't notable and have been deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Haugh (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE did not find any sourcing beyond run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, which is not sufficient for establishing notability (See WP:NOTNEWS#2) for an unelected candidate. This was redirected in a previous afd discussion. I would have no objection to another redirect, but am unsure as what would be an appropriate target, given that he has run multiple campaigns. Either way, the content should probably be deleted to prevent another premature re-creation. Sal2100 (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism, and North Carolina. Sal2100 (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as above, there is no notability. Doesn't seem to have ever had a job, except delivering pizza. No real platform of what he stands for (if anything). Who is paying for his lifestyle? This really sounds like the old Alice Cooper "Elected (song)" where the lyrics are nothing but the singer saying over and over that he wants to be elected. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: NPR and the Washington Post are good, it seems to be an oddball story. PIzza Guy that runs for election. ABC News [9], NBC News [10]. He's notable for being the underling. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oaktree b. Sources – solid profiles in national outlets – are not run of the mill (meaning about them announcing their candidacy, articles about the all-candidates debates, one or more "my positions on the issues" interviews ...). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the ABC and NBC news articles linked above are basically color piece type journalism that do not are too transitory to satisfy the WP:10YT or WP:SUSTAINED. Sal2100 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a perennial candidate. There are plenty of precedents for keeping such articles, as in this case where there’s sufficient sources. Not everyone is a lawyer or teacher; some are pizza delivery workers. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Israel Shinn (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 redirected this article to 7M Films but it was reverted. The subject of this article does not seem to be notable outside of his company 7M nor the documentary about this company (Dancing for the Devil: The 7M TikTok Cult). Mbdfar (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Entertainment, Management, Religion, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject might not be notable enough to warrant an independent page, but I felt that your redirect removed information that made the article more complete. I apologize if reverting was the wrong course of action. Could it be possible to merge all 3 articles on the subject (7M Films, Robert Israel Shinn, and Dancing for the Devil: The 7M TikTok Cult) together? Cowlan (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has no encyclopedic relevance The content of the article is not encyclopedic, it is poorly written and the content is not at all relevant. Alon9393 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankara National Lottery Anatolian High School (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)

Although some Anatolian High Schools are notable, from searching for sources I think this is not Chidgk1 (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Found [11][12][13]. Probably not enough to meet GNG. Most coverage of schools is from when they were built and thus likely offline. C F A 💬 18:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I would say almost all Anatolian High Schools established in the early 90s or before and required entrance exams are very likely to be notable, especially in metropolitan cities like Ankara. They were extremely hard to get in via the nationwide admission tests. Many sources covering them would be offline, unfortunately. This particular school seems also notable because it was the first such school founded by the National Lottery Administration. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Turns out the name of the school has changed in 2012, following 2011 Van Earthquakes. The new name is Betül Can Anadolu Lisesi. One needs to be in the top 3.75% of the participants in order to be placed into this school. I am pretty sure this was much tougher in the pre-1997 era, when there were fewer Anatolian High Schools and the placement was done after 5th grade, so they did not have to compete with Science High Schools. This itself does not bring notability, I know, but it significantly increases the likelihood of coverage in reliable sources. E.g., here is a news story about a success of their students. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The new name may lead to sources that show notability, but qualitative statements about the school, even if sourced, really have nothing to do with notability in the way the term is used on Wikipedia 4.37.252.50 (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to search for sourcing under the second name under which it's known
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Bratislava (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)

Based entirely on primary sources. No third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Slovakia. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I did find one source discussing a dance program they did. Also, there could be non-English sources that are hard to find.

  That said, Delete provisionally: No good sources listed and I am unable to locate any. The dance program could maybe go in the Bratislava or Indian Foreign Relations pages? But of course, Wikipedia does not have to cover every dance program. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. I am instead going to nominate this for merging to The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Lomond (Runrig song) (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 could not find significant coverage of this single or its remix in reliable sources.

Regarding the sources cited, the Background and Recording sections are sourced to Rocking in the Norselands, which is a self-published source per its about page. The Commercial performance section is a description of what happened to the song on the charts, which are primary sources. The song and its remix's chart performance data are already in Runrig discography, so this article can be redirected there. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? Loch Lomond is one of the most significant songs in recent Scottish musical history. There are other articles on Wikipedia with much less information, coverage and significance with their own articles which have never been considered for deletion. Absolute absurd in my opinion. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted a search for reliable sources before I first came to your talk page, and again before nominating this for AfD today. If it is indeed one of the most significant songs in recent Scottish musical history, then surely there are some sources that discuss it in detail. That there are other articles that have similar levels of detail is not a relevant consideration at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is relevant consideration. What makes these articles any less noticeable than other articles with less information or the same level of information? The fact that each article charted on a national chart somewhere in continental Europe make them noticeable in some regard. If each had not chatted, then so be it, they are not notable, but charting is at least some degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that charting is relevant in determining notability per WP:NSONG, which states that charting "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful" (emphasis in original). NSONG still requires significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define significant coverage? Unless you are major mega stars like Billie Eilish or Sabrina Carpenter these days, you don't particularly get a look in by the media these days, so I think perhaps we have to lower our expectations here particularly with releases from the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSONG very clearly explains what significant coverage looks like for a song or single:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. (Endnotes omitted.)

I disagree that we have to lower our expectations here particularly with releases from the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Music journalism existed in those decades and music journalists reviewed singles in publications. There are also academic and popular publications on bands that discuss the development of songs in depth. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A primarily Scottish Gaelic performing band is not necessarily going to be on the international or state media agenda. I fully believe that the nomination of this article in particular is unjustified. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, if this song is as significant as you claim it is, surely Scottish music journalists and critics would have written about it. In establishing notability, we look at what reliable, secondary sources have to say, not the fact that a song sold a lot and got a lot of air time. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With every respect in the world to you, but I must point out that there are articles on Wikipedia that do just that, that they are "a song that sold a lot and got a lot of air time". I am certain if we conduced a search of each of these articles, there would be a high number that would come back that could fall under the banner of "unreliable" and "not significant". Goodreg3 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A silver certification by the BPI, a re-released version charting in the UK Top 10 and number one in Scotland is not noticeable in your opinion? C'mon, are you serious!? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, why don't you nominate articles such as "Wild in Your Smile" and "New Girl" for deletion? Considering they have the same level of information and what could be considered "notability"? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an established consensus at AfD that we do not consider other articles in determining the notability of the article under discussion. I have not reviewed either of those two articles and I don't intend to. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we ought to. I am merely pointing them out as a comparison for the intention of determining the same level of notability based on the information provided and number of references. Clear comparisons. So I struggle to see why the rules should apply to these recently created Runrig articles and not others. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability is not established through comparison of the sourcing or lack thereof in another article. The notability guideline states: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." You might disagree with that guideline and think we should be comparing articles, but the long-standing community consensus is that we don't do that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I still disagree with the nomination of this article for deletion. Perhaps if you were from Scotland and not from New York (presumably), then you will under the significance a song like "Loch Lomond" has in modern Scottish culture. I have a feeling you will come back with another copy and paste from some Wikipedia guideline here, however, let's see what the wider community suggests. I fully believe that this article warrants its own article, in its own right, and has appropriate coverage and significance to justify it, not least by its success in two national charts. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put on the record, I am 100% against the deletion of this article and therefore oppose the nomination. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Global Consciousness Project. There was clear consensus not to keep the page in place, and merger received enough support to be accepted as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Nelson (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'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [14], [15], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first review you list is in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which (searching WP:FRINGEN archives) appears not to be considered reliable. The second is from the Society for Psychical Research, also of dubious reliability. Per WP:FRINGE, we need mainstream coverage of this material, not affirmations from other believers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AUTHOR is just passing book reviews, no matter how good or bad they are. I suppose they aren't RS? Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether they're positive or negative is not so important, but whether they're reliable is important. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fringe publications aren't a reliable source of information, regardless of the valence of the review 0xchase (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of this is relevant the notability or lack of sources here Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, for articles on fringe subjects, we must base them on reliably-published mainstream sources, we have no independent sources at all in our article, I don't think the two reviews listed above are mainstream, and I could not find better in my searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of usable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For all the nonsense his work is, there does appear to be coverage of Nelson and his work over the course of multiple years. Some examples:

• So Just What Makes the Earth Move? by JD Reed - The New York Times
• The day the world got smaller by Claudia Smith Brinson (Page 2) - The State
• Far out: The Global Mind by Mark Pilkington - The Guardian
• When all earth grieves: Science finds astonishing consequences of our pain by Sarah Gibb - The Vancouver Sun
• Shared tragedies breeding global consciousness: study - The StarPhoenix
• Cambridge Institute Delves Into Paranormal Phenomena by Kenneth Chang - The Tampa Tribune
• Roger Nelson’s “Global Consciousness” Does Not Exist by Dominique J. Persoons - European Journal of Theology and Philosophy

The exact sort of paranormal work he does appears to be the kind that gets the clicks and notice from the news media. Silverseren^C 23:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most or any of these pass both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV

• Some of these uncritically embrace the paranormal stuff and clearly aren't mainstream
• Most of these sources are primarily covering the Global Consciousness Project and only make passing mention of Nelson. The GCP already has its own article, and Nelson doesn't get inherited notability.

0xchase (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming mainstream major newspapers aren't "mainstream" just because they are uncritical? Whether they embrace a fringe topic or criticize it is irrelevant. It is significant coverage regardless. And it is coverage of his research, which is relevant for coverage toward him, since while he's fringe, this still falls under notability for academics. And, for this fringe field, he is clearly both a discussed and noted expert that has received significant news focus. Silverseren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion --Altenmann >talk 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) delete The refs listed by Silver screen above are sensationalist blurbs and other not very reliable sources. In topics like this an encyclopedia needs references from mainstream experts. --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, your opinion on "topics like this" is irrelevant toward notability, including for those of academics, fringe or not. Are you seriously claiming entire multi-page articles in major newspapers are "sensationalist blurbs"? Please explain how significant coverage for notability works in your view, Altenmann. Silverseren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didnt pay attention that some texts are really long. Reclusing for now; lazy to do research. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps we should redirect to Global Consciousness Project?. 0xchase (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've read the assessment of my sources above, if they aren't RS, we don't have much of anything left for notability. I don't think a redirect would help, I question the notability of the Project as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What assessment? I'm seeing none above and no actual discussion of the sources I presented. Especially if you're claiming that large page news articles don't count toward even notability of the project in question. How exactly are you determining notability, Oaktree b? Silverseren^C 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  David Epstein commented on the two sources directly below my first comment to !keep, which I've since changed. I was talking about my first vote. I've not reviewed the other, newer ones identified further down. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I might take a look at them later, I have no time to do so now. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The NY Times, Vancouver Sun, and Guardian are good sources, however their articles are primarily about the project, not him. A few sentences (maybe a paragraph) introducing him using those sources found by Silver Seren would actually enhance that article. That would fill in his educational background (a short list of degrees) and perhaps something about his beliefs/goals. But for him I don't see SIGCOV for a separate article. Lamona (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Global Consciousness Project, in order for him to get coverage, we would need WP:DEPTH, which we don't have here.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Silverseren’s sources. He seems to have received SIGCOV and sources that debunk his views. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources only have WP:DEPTH for the Global Consciousness Project, not Nelson himself. 0xchase (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable fringe. Merge Change my mind. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The reliable sources that have been identified have WP:DEPTH about the project, not Nelson. 0xchase (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments are still divided between Keep, Delete and Merge. A further review of sources, and whether they focus on the article subject or projects that he has worked on, would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect to Global Consciousness Project There's not enough here to merit notability and the sources provided are almost entirely profiles taken from his various organizational connections. Nor have I seen in-depth independent coverage of Nelson himself in reliable and verifiable sources that would support a claim of notability. The article for the Global Consciousness Project best summarizes his work and whatever meaningful material that's in this article should be merged there, with this one turned into a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Eliminate. Article written as evidence and there are no independent references that support the biographer. --Alon9393 (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Kaçaj (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)

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Modest career with 11 games in Albania's highest league and almost nothing else. Quite often vandalized during the article's history, and I removed an unsupported claim of prolific playing and goalscoring. Sources? This is 1/3 interview, but mentions kinship with Salvador Kaçaj so he might be a merge target. This is a match report of the only time he scored a goal. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Halla Airlines Embraer Brasilia crash (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)

per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS no notable fatalities or injuries and did not have a long lasting news cycle. Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've nominated the accidental second nomination page for speedy deletion. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia. I don't personally see the point in deleting these articles, but this is a classic WP:NEVENT#Duration of coverage/WP:NOTNEWS fail. All local coverage. Only 3 pages of Google News results. Nothing really noteworthy here. C F A 💬 03:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – @Lolzer3000: Why PROD the article and then nominate it for deletion when there's already an active merge request that you've started at Talk:2023 Halla Airlines Embraer Brasilia crash#Merge Discussion? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i made a mistake, my apoligies. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's my first time nominating an article with twinkle, i'll swiftly delete the merge discussion section. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Article is almost similar to Qantas Flight 1 article. Only difference: Different airframe. Severe damage was received by the airframe resulting in a hull loss. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OSE applies here. Similarities with other accidents are not grounds in favor of an argument. Each accident is different and should be judged on their own merits separately. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents. – The event lacks secondary sourcing with the majority of them being primary, and sustained continued coverage with most of the coverage originating in the aftermath of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents per @Aviationwikiflightand @CFA. Carguychris (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Grade (South Park) (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)

There are several sides to this. But firstly, an episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. I don't find any pass on WP:GNG for this eleventh episode of season 4 of South Park. Secondly, there is 4th Grade (South Park episode) which currently redirects to South Park season 4, which makes this title a duplicate of the former. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, and Colorado. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Every other episode of South Park with the exception of this one had a Wikipedia article, which is why this one was created. For some reason, for this single episode in particular, it just had a redirect to the season 4 page rather than an article. Retaining the article for this episode and fixing the redirect behavior to point to this rather than the season 4 article is more consistent with how every other episode in the series is handled. Onyxqk (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just updated 4th Grade (South Park episode) to redirect to the article for the episode to fix that issue. Onyxqk (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also included a Production section in the article that cites an interview printed in a newspaper at the time about the episode's conception. This aligns the article more with the existing Wikipedia articles on South Park episodes. Onyxqk (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom -- no inherent notability. The three references used here aren't in-depth covreage of this specific eposide, so they don't help the subject meet WP:GNG. WP:OTHERTHINGS doesn't help, and there's no requirement for completeness. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:OTHERTHINGS: 'If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.' Onyxqk (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not every South Park character has an article... – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not every South Park character has an article, but every South Park episode (except possibly this one) has an article. The example mentioned in WP:OTHERTHINGS is about applying the same treatment to articles that fall into an identical category (whether it's Star Wars main characters or South Park episodes). Onyxqk (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PLOT and failing to meet threshold of Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to South Park season 4#ep59. The title of an episode is a reasonable search term, so redirecting is a better option than deleting, but the current article has too little coverage – in the current references, the only coverage of this specific episode is too brief to justify an entire article. More sources such as episode reviews from notable sites would be needed to keep the article, though I couldn't find any. (From a quick glance, a lot of other season 4 episodes could probably be redirected as well, so having this article because every other episode has an article is a bad argument.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing stance to keep per the sources below, though I stand by my note that many other season 4 articles are in poor condition and could be redirected (and since this episode was a mid-season premiere of sorts, it likely earned more attention than those episodes). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Morrow, Terry (2000-11-08). "'South Park' still delivers punch". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "There's a renewed energy in co-creator Trey Parker's script. Even the opening credits, with the splash of explosions and the techno-laden theme song, punctuate that the show, with 62 episodes now behind it, is not resting on its profitable laurels. The fourth grade brings a new teacher, a Janet Reno look-alike in need of a bra and whose name can't be printed in a family newspaper. ...As "South Park" storytelling goes, this one is fairly straightforward and very funny. This opener is an indication that "South Park" hasn't lost its snap. Parker and co-creator Matt Stone still care passionately for the cartoon, and it is obvious. At this point, many shows—especially live-action comedies—have run out of ideas. But "South Park" retains its rebellious spirit. The fourth grade, it seems, will be very good for the show."

  2. Werts, Diane (2000-11-08). "The Gang Forges Into Fourth Grade". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "All the tangy ingredients of writer-director Parker's patented pop culture stew are there. Cartman and the gang forge into fourth grade amid intrigue, taking in "Star Trek's" time-travel babble, the explosive suspense of "Speed" and former teacher Mr. Garrison's spiritual journey through "the tree of insight" toward his suppressed gay side. The usual nasty-boy word and eye play return in the person of oddly endowed new teacher Ms. Choksondik. There's even a rockin' new opening that elevates wheelchair pal Timmy to full-fledged regular status. But the pieces don't fit together quite as brightly as usual, making the whole somewhat less than the sum of its individually clever parts."

  3. Brown, Joel (2000-11-08). "Television Review - New season of 'South Park' goes fourth as the kids get promoted". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

     The review notes: "As always, there's a demented kind of uplift here. Hypocrites are skewered, personal growth is encouraged and Timmy is treated with a rough fellowship that may be more politically correct than the show's creators OR its detractors would want to admit. Still this is a show that will send a lot of people screaming from the room. ... There's nothing in this episode quite as taboo-busting or as funny as the explicit love affair between Saddam Hussein and Satan in the "South Park" movie and one episode last season. But there's still enough off-color humor, graphic language and generally twisted mentality on display to give Bill Bennett a cerebral hemorrhage."

  4. Saunders, Michael; Sullivan, Jim (2000-11-08). "An upgrade on 'South Park'". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Tonight marks the start of a new season for the boys and girls at "South Park," the twisted, animated brainchild of Matt Stone and Trey Parker that airs on Comedy Central. Kyle, Cartman, and their pals enter fourth grade and are thrust into the horrific clutches of Ms. Choksondik, who forces cursive writing upon them. They lament "it's the end of innocence" and immediately persuade two "Star Trek"-freak college geeks to build a time machine to send them back to third grade."

  5. Kronke, David (2000-11-08). "The Hype". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

     The review notes: "South Park returns tonight, with Kyle, Cartman and company promoted—somehow—to the fourth grade, where their new teacher, Miss Choksondik (no, it's not very subtle), is a fearsome creature with really, really pendulous breasts and a floating right pupil. It's bad enough for the guys to get nostalgic about third grade, and before long, they're building a time machine, which unsurprisingly creates chaos, and not much after that, right after the rather belated and lame "Speed" parody, Kenny dies, and a brand-new catch phrase is born."

  6. Morrow, Terry. "Kids of 'South Park' Growing Up Slowly". The Journal Gazette. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

     The article notes: ""South Park: The Fourth Grade Years" (10 p.m. today on Comedy Central, Comcast Channel 65) will follow Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman into a new grade, with a new teacher, as creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone find more playground for the boys to trod."

  7. Bianco, Robert (2000-11-08). "Critic's corner". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

     The review notes: "Those foul-talking kids from South Park (Comedy Central, 10 p.m. ET/PT) face the end of innocence as they are promoted to the fourth grade. Happily, age has not dimmed their ability to make you laugh helplessly, or to leave you gasping at their robust tastelessness."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow South Park: The Fourth Grade Years to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are these "significant coverage"? They're all capsule reviews. The longest seems to be the Kronke article, which is just a plot summary. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Boston Globe article includes an interview with the creators about the episode and is several paragraphs long (more than solely a plot summary). The Boston Herald article is a review that is also several paragraphs long. The Newsday article also includes a review of the episode including its downsides (rather than just summarizing). Will update the article on the episode to include a 'Reception' section with the coverage in these reliable sources. Onyxqk (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Included a Reception section featuring reviews from three reliable sources and included information from the interview with the Boston Globe in the Production section. Onyxqk (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in view of the multiple reliable secondary sources identified in this discussion which together enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reception section added by Onyxgk. Toughpigs (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to multiple reliable sources. Also see this for a comparable discussion. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the listed sources above. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. It would be good to add viewership numbers if anyone is able to find that. I wasn't able to find it at a quick glance, so it may take a bit deeper digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep AfD is not the place for a referendum, as noted in OwenX's relist, however consenus for anything other than retention is not going to emerge here especially due to size and challenge navigating this discussion by both humans and scripts. Should an RfC happen that indicates another course of action for all those affected, this close should not preclude it. It's not necessarily a keep forever so much as a keep until further discussion, which may well back up the keep. Star Mississippi 02:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of statutory instruments of Scotland, 2024 (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)

Page has only primary sources, and is not informative about the pieces of legislation themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DotCoder (talk • contribs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify: given they have not been discussed in reliable sources as a group, as far as I know, I think they fail the list notability guideline. It says lists can be kept for informational purposes, but this is mostly a list that includes things like closing roads, so probably should be deleted per WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information). Suggesting draftify if there is any hope because a lot of work seems to have been put into it. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other lists of delegated / secondary legislation that I think should be considered jointly.

DotCoder (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The data in these lists is organized by year and number -- not in a way that would be useful to most readers. Basically, if you know the year and number of a statutory instrument, these lists will tell you what its title was and provide a link to the content at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ . Of course, if you already knew the year and number, you could just go to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ and look it up yourself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Year and number is the only useful way to list the instruments. Any other way is chaos and impossible to navigate. Legislation.gov.uk is a largely useless website for our readers. It is missing notable or important instruments, and we cannot add the missing items to that website. It contains inadequate commentary on the instruments it does have, and we cannot add better commentary to that website. It does not summarise the commentary in paywalled independent secondary sources, such as Current Law Statutes (to pick a random example), and we cannot add such summaries to that website. Our readers cannot use Legislation.gov.uk to navigate Wikipedia: Our lists already have many blue links. Any website that we cannot edit is largely useless for our readers. James500 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally none of the pages contain commentary.

  There are 158 pages in total and none of them contain commentary.

  Some of them have been on wiki since 2006.

  The issue is that 99% do not have commentary to write.

  List of statutory instruments of the United Kingdom, 2016 does not link to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Any attention given to statutory instruments just is not happening through the list articles; it's happening through people writing about them on their own. DotCoder (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demonguy1990
  • David Newton
  • James500

  As far as I can see, these articles have mostly been maintained by the three of you.

  Can you explain how these articles meet the criteria of Wikipedia:NOT, specifically the "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" rules?

  Can you explain how these articles meet the rules regarding not exclusively citing primary sources?

  Can you explain how these articles meet the rules regarding notability?

  Thank you. DotCoder (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ATD says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". There is no even theoretically possible WP:NOT argument that cannot be addressed by adding additional commentary and sources to the lists, and creating articles and redirects for particular instruments. The instruments have an enormous amount of coverage in an enornous number of sources (so you can add commentary and sources), a lot of them individually satisfy GNG (so you can create articles), and the rest can be redirected to article on the Act of Parliament under which they were made, or the area of the law to which they relate, and covered in the redirect target. James500 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the avoidance of doubt, these lists are *not* mostly maintained by me. My involvement consists largely of the previous AfD. My name would not show up prominently in the page histories of these lists, so you clearly did not get my username from those page histories. James500 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the discussion in all the previous AfDs including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland. Satisfies GNG and LISTN. Statutory instruments in the United Kingdom have received significant coverage, as a group and individually, in books and periodicals. In fact, they have extensive coverage in just about every law book, legal treatise, legal encyclopedia and legal periodical ever published in the United Kingdom from the passing of the Rules Publication Act 1893 and the Statutory Instrument Act 1946 onwards (so more or less every law book published after 1893). In fact, there is, amongst other publications, actually an encyclopedia of statutory instruments called Halsbury's Statutory Instruments. That should not be surprising because this is a proposal to delete much more than half the legislation of the United Kingdom, and completely disrupt all coverage of UK law on this project. The nomination is by a WP:SLEEPER with no or virtually no edits for nearly ten years, and then a massive spike of edits in the last two months. James500 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How are the lists not directories? DotCoder (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy WP:ATD says that if a list can be expanded beyond a directory, you have to expand it instead of deleting it. James500 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it can be expanded beyond a directory. DotCoder (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is stopping you from adding the commentary in Halsbury's Statutory Instruments and Current Law Statutes and all the other law books? To take a random example, page C6-1 of volume 3 of Current Law Statutes 2004 contains a detailed commentary on the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No 6) (Wales) Order 2004. What is stopping you from going and adding that information to the relevant list right now? James500 (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For one thing, I don't think a commencement order should be written about before the article about the primary legislation itself and as you can see for yourself, it does not seem like it has an article about it List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2001, Health and Social Care Act 2001.

  For example, I have written most of the articles about actual primary legislation in Category:Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish there were more articles about primary legislation.

  I do think there should be an article about notable statutory instruments for each legislature. Unfortunately most statutory instruments are so non-notable that I don't think them being separated into 158 disparate different pages is really informative. DotCoder (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) There is no policy or guideline or consensus that says that we cannot cover a topic unless an article on its parent topic has already been created first. There is no reason to do that. (2) Notability guidelines apply to the creation of standalone pages. They do not apply to the inclusion of content inside pages (WP:ARTN). (3) The test for notability is the amount of coverage the topic has, not whether you consider the topic to be "important" in your subjective personal opinion. (4) These instruments satisfy LISTN as a group, therefore they are entitled to have a standalone list. (5) Many of these instruments are individually notable, and many others have coverage that ought to be included in this encyclopedia. It is not helpful to use hyperbole that looks like fake statistics such as "99%" or "the vast majority" when you actually have no idea how much coverage there really is, and the rest of us have actually read publications like Halsbury's Statutory Instruments and many others. (5) Redirects should be included in lists to facilitate navigation (LISTN). (6) It is possible to remove individual entries from lists on various grounds, but we do not do that by deleting the entire page, and AfD is not an appropriate venue to discuss issues with article content that are not grounds for deleting the page. (6) I do not think that anyone here is going to create an article on the Health and Social Care Act 2001 if they suspect that someone might respond with an immediate tit for tat AfD nomination. (7) You only created three articles in Category:Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we have no guarantee you will create more. (8) To be entirely blunt, UK-wide statutory instruments are likely to receive more coverage than Northern Ireland Acts, and are therefore more likely to be individually notable. James500 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1) You asked me why I didn't write commentary, and I gave my personal reason for my personal thought process. I did not imply anything about all people on Wikipedia.

  2)WP:NLISTITEM does cover items within lists and there is no "due weight" and "balance" argument for pages that are only citing primary sources.

  3) The topic does have coverage in the media, and there are news articles about a law being commenced, and there are articles about regulations and their articles about road closures, among other things. Unfortunately the lists don't cite them, so I don't think that's relevant.

  4) I disagree, that is the point of my AFD.

  5) I did not see Halsbury's Statutory Instruments cited on any of the pages, so I don't see the relevance. You keep mentioning this as an important source for understanding the instruments, but it isn't cited in any of the pages, which seems contradictory.

  6A) ignored.

  6B) I will.

  7) Not relevant. But I stress that it is much easier to discuss secondary legislation in the context of the parent primary legislation. I don't think you can discuss Commencement Order No. 5, without the context of Commencement Order No. 1, Commencement Order No. 2, Commencement Order No. 3, Commencement Order No. 4.

  8) Given that none of the coverage has been cited, I don't think this is relevant.

  How would you discuss a commencement order when it puts certain provisions of primary legislation into force if there's nothing on Wikipedia about the provisions themselves? DotCoder (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the avoidance of doubt only: (4 and 5) Halsbury's Statutory Instruments, amongst other publications, contains significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of statutory instruments both as a group and individually. Therefore statutory instruments satisfy both GNG and LISTN. A copy of 13 volumes (and there are other volumes) that coverage is here: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. The fact that those scans exist on the Internet Archive, is final and conclusive proof that statutory instruments satisfy LISTN. It does not matter whether that coverage is cited in the Wikipedia lists, because notability depends on, and only on, the existence of coverage outside of Wikipedia. If Halsbury' Statutory Instruments is never cited in those lists or anywhere on Wikipedia, the statutory instruments will continue satisfy LISTN forever, because significant coverage exists in those scans on the Internet Archive. WP:ARTN clearly states "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. . . ., if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." The existence of those 13 scans on the Internet Archive conclusively proves that "the source material exists", therefore the topic is notable. I did not say that Halsbury' Statutory Instruments is important for understanding the instruments, I said that Halsbury' Statutory Instruments is an independent reliable secondary source that contains significant coverage of statutory instruments as a group, which means that statutory instruments satisfy GNG and LISTN. James500 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there statutory instruments are so important, why does the page on List of statutory instruments of the Welsh Assembly, still refer to the "Welsh Assembly", when the name was changed in 2020 (4 years ago)? DotCoder (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the Wikipedia community is too lazy to update the article. James500 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A) You say that the articles may be improved re only citing primary sources at some distant point.

  B) You say you don't maintain these pages any more (at the beginning of the discussion).

  C) You also characterise the Wikipedia community as "too lazy" to maintain a large chunk of the articles in this AFD.

  This is all characteristic of WP:NOWORK, specifically

  >>>>I know I can improve it, I just have no time now to explain how. DotCoder (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOWORK says the opposite of what you seem to be implying: the point it's making is that you should avoid making the argument that a lack of recent progress justifies the deletion of articles. You also need to assume good faith (see WP:AGF): at no point did James500 say they don't have time to improve the articles. Theknightwho (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. They did say that they had stopped maintaining the lists, and also described the Wikipedia community as "too lazy" to maintain the articles, which implies that the articles cannot be improved by their logic, which contradicts their assertion that their suggestion that the articles would need significant improvement to no longer be directories.

  It only violates the rule in combination, but it is quite clear in combination. DotCoder (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DotCoder If I understand you correctly, your argument is:

  1. James500 believes these are directories.
  2. They also believe the Wikipedia community is too lazy to ever improve the lists.
  3. This therefore justifies the deletion of the articles, because they will never be improved beyond directories.

  Even if James500's comment about the WP community being "too lazy" were totally literal and sincere (and not merely a throwaway comment about how things get missed sometimes), you can't take them as the sole judge of whether that's actually true, and I very much don't think it is. That's aside from the fact that James500 quite clearly doesn't believe that, going by the rest of their comments on this page. Theknightwho (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  List of statutory instruments of Scotland, 2011 has been on Wikipedia since 2013. 11 years ago.

  It doesn't have any citations at all, let alone exclusively citations to primary sources.

  I can understand why it's easy to /say/ that these articles could be changed to no longer be directories in the /future/, but I just want to argue with things as they are at this moment.

  It is literally impossible to argue with something that doesn't exist.

  I can understand the issue. Some articles only have one or two people maintaining them, and they update them every few years. I also think that 13 years is long enough that you can't vaguely describe the articles being fixed at some point.

  The principle that "if the article could be fixed then keep" breaks down at some point. I am not an expert. This line may be 8 years. This line may be 10 years. It may be 20 years. It may depend on context.

  I personally think 13 years is enough. The reality is that many many lists in this AFD have the same issues. DotCoder (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DotCoder That is all just WP:NOWORK. Wikipedia doesn't work like that: Content shouldn't be removed just because no one has improved it yet; that would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Theknightwho (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Under that logic, when would a directory ever be removed? DotCoder (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DotCoder Deletion is not the only solution available if something goes against WP:NOT, and I don't agree these lists do in the first place. Theknightwho (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think they should be draftified. DotCoder (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because it's totally infeasible to review them all within 6 months. Theknightwho (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Roughly, how many could be reviewed within that period?

  I will do this again with a more specific subset. DotCoder (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Presence on Archive.org does not mean anything re notability. Anyone can archive anything.

  For example, Health and Social Care Act 2001 has an external link to a PDF on archive.org that I archived.

  I think if these things are important but can't be cited then they should go at the end of the article in an "external link". DotCoder (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Halsbury's Statutory Instruments is a printed book published by Butterworths, who are one of the most reputable publishers in the world. That is not "anyone". The scans on the Internet Archive are obviously genuine, having been uploaded by the Kahle/Austin Foundation etc, but if you doubted their fidelity to the printed book, all you have to do is go and get a printed copy of the book from a library or a book seller. You will find the book in every university library in the country and all good book sellers. James500 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I question the importance of Halsbury's Statutory Instruments when it is not mentioned once in Statutory instrument (UK). The Halsbury's Statutory Instruments page is only a stub. DotCoder (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DotCoder You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a measuring stick for the notability of a source, or another article. Theknightwho (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry. I apologise. DotCoder (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The vast majority of the lists regard things like individual road closures, so they don't meet the notability criteria.

  There are 14 articles on Wales statutory instruments, but there are no articles on what a Wales statutory instrument is, unlike Scottish Statutory Instrument. I think that would be more informative than setup. DotCoder (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The lists need adding to, rather than removing them in their entirety. We also need editors to create dedicated articles for the more important secondary legislation. Then there will be more live links rather than just the S.I. number and year. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How would this not be a directory? DotCoder (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per SpookiePuppy, and the fact that this is essentially a rehash of the last AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland. Theknightwho (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  > You are using "NOTDATABASE" and the other shortcuts as a WP:VAGUEWAVE. WP:ATD specifically says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". That is clearly the case here.As for LISTN, you can start with the coverage in the Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, the Digest of Northern Ireland Law, the Irish Law Times, and the Irish Jurist, amongst others

  Many of these pages have not been significantly improved since then, so I assume significant improvement won't happen in this case. DotCoder (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are thousands of pieces of legislation, and only so many editors. The fact that not all of the lists have been improved in the last year doesn't indicate that that will remain the case indefinitely. That's aside from the fact that there's a lot more interest in UK law in general than Northern Irish law specifically. Theknightwho (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have looked at them all and none of them have been improved. DotCoder (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not factually accurate. Northern Ireland lists were improved, by the addition of sources and blue links (which are annotations), and the removal of superfluous text. It is true that more improvements may be desirable, but there is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that an article may be deleted because someone says they are WP:IMPATIENT to see improvements, especially when they refuse to make any improvements to it themselves. In the time you have spent making arguments in this AfD, you could have made plenty of improvements with Halsbury's Statutory Instruments or the like. James500 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The addition of the blue links do not change the nature as directories.

  The list articles were improved as directories but not beyond that. DotCoder (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A blue link is not a "simple listing" within the meaning of WP:NOT. A blue link is "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" within the meaning of WP:NOT. James500 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed - at this point, it feels like DotCoder is arguing against the concept of list articles as a whole. Theknightwho (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No other list contains such a large volume of non-notable events, only citing primary sources, without providing any further commentary in most cases, while also, it is being suggested that the lists may be improved further at some point, but that the Wikipedia community is "too lazy" to maintain them and make the improvements. DotCoder (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly suggest you read WP:AGF at this point, instead of insinuating that another editor is knowingly contradicting themselves. Theknightwho (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not saying the contradictions are intentional, I am saying they are unintentional. DotCoder (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It may seem like I am being hostile, but earlier it was suggested that I would be too afraid to write an article because of a hypothetical tit-for-tat AFD.

  >>>>>I do not think that anyone here is going to create an article on the Health and Social Care Act 2001 if they suspect that someone might respond with an immediate tit for tat AfD nomination.

  I wrote the Health and Social Care Act 2001 article partially on the basis that I wanted to make it clear that I trust that James500 would not do that, because they are arguing in good faith. I had been interested in that because it came up in a book that I was reading about that period, so I had wanted to do it for a while.

  I am 100% confident in James500 arguing in good faith, but I think contradictions cannot be ignored. DotCoder (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DotCoder It's a completely unreasonable interpretation of what they said, given it's directly contradicted by the fact that they say the lists can be improved elsewhere. Quite obviously there are other interpretations that don't lead to contradiction, which is why I'm saying you need to assume good faith. Theknightwho (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The SSI Articles list and match all years from 1999-present and if the should be deleted then so should all articles dealing with laws (UKSI,NISR, NIA, ASP, UKPGA, ACTS OF THE US CONGRESS ETC,) I created the 2024 article to match the others i also created the 2023 articles even though the articles have not be updated in a wee while (because of personal reasons) they match all other articles this is not the only nitpicking from certain users about the law articles i never created the original articles that started listing the laws i just continued creating them and listing the laws its easier to find a law on wikipedia for a year that look on legislation.gov.uk and have to troll through list of laws just to find the one you are looking for, if the articles shall be deleted then so should all articles dealing with any law including US Congress Acts better still you might as well delete the whole site as wikipedia is supposed to be about finding information. Demonguy1990 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2024 (BST)
• Keep not seeing a valid reason for deletion as it is possible to add content and information on some of the entries in each list so that database concerns are countered in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't find a lot of sense when it comes to how these articles have been organized. A single proper article with summaries would be better. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The latest edition of Halsbury's Statutory Instruments alone has 38 volumes, not including the looseleaf updating service, the index and the citator. That is tens of thousands of pages of coverage. And that is just the introductory work to this subject, which you will find treated in most law books published for more than a century. You cannot fit a topic with that level of coverage into a single article. That is like saying that the topic of Belgium would be better treated in the single proper article Belgium, and that all the other pages in Category:Belgium, such as all the lists in Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Belgium, should be deleted. It goes without saying that such an approach is not compatible with the guideline WP:LISTN. I should point out that the policy WP:PRESERVE directs that encyclopedic content should be preserved by "splitting the content to an entirely new article" if it will not fit into the parent article (subject to the requirement the new article satisfies the relevant notability guidelines). That policy is meant to stop you from deleting content just because you want to delete all information that you personally don't want to read. Because Wikipedia is not just for you. James500 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and rescope to only cover independently notable statutory instruments. Sure, the concept of "Scottish statutory instruments" (or UK, or Welsh, or Northern Irish) probably passes LISTN. But even if something passes LISTN, that very much does not imply the resulting list should be exhaustive. To take the canonical example from LISTN, "Norwegian musicians" is a notable grouping, but we don't put every verifiable Norwegian garage band on the list, just the notable ones.

Reading through the lists, it's clear there are many instruments our sources will never have much to say about. Instruments like The A82 Trunk Road (Spean Bridge) (Temporary Prohibition on Use of Road) Order 2024 (S.S.I. 2024 No. 27), which closed said road for one day.

I took a look at the scans of Halsbury's Statutory Instruments James500 linked and they don't provide the significant coverage of individual instruments he is claiming. The publication seems focused on exhaustively reproducing or summarising the instruments' text without giving its own input. – Teratix ₵ 03:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to remove all instruments that are not individually notable, we would still need all of these lists, because the number of individually notable statutory instruments will not fit in anything smaller than an annual list. That would probably be true of any other topic that is also the subject of a 38 volume encyclopedia and is central to a particular academic discipline. Halsbury's Statutory Instruments provides significant coverage of individual instruments and gives its own input. And there are a lot of other books. James500 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the number of individually notable statutory instruments will not fit in anything smaller than an annual list I see no reason to think this is the case, given how trivial many of the instruments are.

the subject of a 38 volume encyclopedia and is central to a particular academic discipline That obviously does not imply we should exhaustively cover every statutory instrument ever enacted. Musicians are also the subjects of large encyclopedias and are "central to a particular academic discipline", but it would obviously be silly to argue we should therefore have giant lists of every musician that verifiably exists. Instead, we only list notable musicians. We should do the same for statutory instruments.

Halsbury's Statutory Instruments provides significant coverage of individual instruments and gives its own input. I checked, that's false.

And there are a lot of other books. I don't doubt there are other books on statutory instruments. What I'm doubting is whether these books actually provide significant coverage (i.e. actual discussion, not mere reproduction or summary) of all or even most of the statutory instruments in question, rather than a subset. Nothing I've read in this AfD has suggested this is the case. – Teratix ₵ 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to think this is the case, given how trivial many of the instruments are.

You appear to be admitting that you have not done a WP:BEFORE search. You are cherry picking the most "trivial" examples. You are literally providing single carefully cherry picked examples of the most "trivial" instruments you can find on the list. You have not even counted how many "road closure" orders there are. You have not even proved that such instruments constitute even 50% of the list. Seriously, if even a mere 10% of the 3000+ UKSIs passed in a year were important enough to include (and I think the proportion is higher than that) you would still need annual lists. You are ignoring the large numbers of really important instruments. (I am tempted to point to something like the Criminal Appeal Rules 1968, and their coverage in "Archbold", but I don't want to condone the cherry picking you are engaging in by advancing single examples). Do I have to go through all the important instruments one at a time and give a blow by blow account of how much coverage they have? Do you realise what that would entail?

I checked, that's false.

I read the book as well, and what you are saying is false. You obviously have not read the whole of 38 volumes during this AfD. I have spent years reading those volumes and other books.

not mere reproduction or summary

Halsbury does contain commentary that goes beyond summary. That is the whole point of the annotations and preliminary notes. In any event, "summary" is capable of constituting significant coverage. There is nothing in GNG that says that "summary" is inherently insignificant.

What I'm doubting is whether these books actually provide significant coverage

Again, you appear to be admitting that you have not done WP:BEFORE and asking me to cite thousands of books to prove significant coverage of thousands of instruments. It is not clear how I am supposed to type up thousands of citations during the 7 days of an AfD. It looks like you are asking me to do something that might be physically impossible. James500 (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be admitting that you have not done a WP:BEFORE search I haven't "done a WP:BEFORE search" in the sense that I haven't personally checked each and every statutory instrument on these lists for notability, but I'm sure you'd agree that would be unreasonable. I've done enough BEFORE to be confident there are probably enough non-notable instruments on the list that rescoping to cover only notable instruments is warranted.

You are ignoring the large numbers of really important instruments. Arguing "but there are lots of really important instruments!" means nothing here. Of course there are some notable instruments – I support having articles on them and I support having lists of them. What I don't support is including non-notable instruments on the lists – and, as S.S.I. 2024 No. 27 demonstrates, there are certainly some obviously trivial instruments.

You obviously have not read the whole of 38 volumes during this AfD. I didn't, naturally. Obviously it would be absurd to require AfD participants to read all 38 volumes. I read enough to get a good idea of how the source tends to cover statutory instruments.

That is the whole point of the annotations and preliminary notes. I read these – they don't give significant coverage for every individual instrument.

There is nothing in GNG that says that "summary" is inherently insignificant. My particular concern with the summaries is they can be so close to the instruments themselves that they're not actually independent sources. To take an example, compare the Halsbury summary of the UK SI 2000 No. 2984 (p. 294-295 here) with the instrument (and its explanatory note) itself

asking me to cite thousands of books to prove significant coverage of thousands of instruments No, of course I'm not asking you to do that. If another editor is asking you to do something that seems comically unreasonable, you're probably misinterpreting them. I would merely want to see some sort of overwhelming tendency for statutory instruments to receive significant coverage. I think there are at least two easy ways you could demonstrate this:

1. Pick several of the most trivial instruments and demonstrate they have nonetheless received significant coverage (since if the most unimportant instruments get significant coverage, it should follow that more important instruments will receive at least as much coverage)
2. Pick a randomly selected sample of instruments (the more the merrier, but let's say 10) and demonstrate such a large portion (let's say 80% or higher) get significant coverage that there wouldn't really be a point in cutting out non-notable instruments.

– Teratix ₵ 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as S.S.I. 2024 No. 27 demonstrates, there are certainly some obviously trivial instruments

That is still only one example. What is needed is something resembling statistical evidence. Let's look at the list for 1989. There are more than 2500 instruments, some of which are missing. The page is more than 227kB long. I looked at all of the first 200 instruments on the list. I did not find a single temporary road closure order in that sample. From that sample, I infer that the proportion of road closure orders on that list is probably 0%. If we remove that 0% of the instruments on that list, we will reduce the length of the list to less than 228kB which is still WP:TOOBIG to merge. I see no reason to believe that these lists, and especially the UK-wide lists, will ever be small enough to merge, even if you were to remove (just picking a random number) 90% of their entries, and especially if you want to add commentary to the list. It is the "merge" part of your !vote that concerns me.

it would be absurd to require AfD participants to read all 38 volumes

I disagree. In order to argue that a topic does not have significant coverage, it would be necessary to read all of the coverage. There is no other way to prove that particular negative.

not actually independent sources

"Halsbury" is not produced by the government. Butterworths is not affiliated with the government. I am not convinced that merely being "close to the original" is ever capable of causing a work to be produced by the government. You have only provided one example, it is not as close to the original as you seem to imply, and it is certainly not so close to the original that it could be accurately said to have been produced by the government. James500 (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at all of the first 200 instruments on the list. I did not find a single temporary road closure order in that sample. Yet there are certainly a good deal of trivial instruments in that sample, even if they are not "temporary road closure orders" specifically. Just from a quick scan through, I see S.I. 1989/87, S.I. 1989/124, S.I. 1989/130, S.I. 1989/131, S.I. 1989/198, S.I. 1989/199 and S.I. 1989/200 (road-related instruments); S.I. 1989/41 and S.I 1989/121 (borehole-related instruments); S.I. 1989/33 and S.I. 1989/34 (submarine-pipeline-related instruments); S.I. 1989/25, S.I. 1989/31, S.I. 1989/52, S.I. 1989/84, S.I. 1989/92, S.I. 1989/112, S.I. 1989/139, S.I. 1989/146, S.I. 1989/157 (minor amendments to existing instruments); and S.I. 1989/23, S.I. 1989/78, S.I. 1989/79, S.I. 1989/116 and S.I. 1989/141 (pure revocations of existing instruments) as extremely unlikely to be independently notable. I'm sure there are many more non-notable instruments in that sample, those are just the ones that stood out to me on a first pass.

to argue that a topic does not have significant coverage, it would be necessary to read all of the coverage No, this is not always true – you merely need to read enough to reach a sound conclusion about whether significant coverage exists. This is how reference bombs are defused – if someone turns up at an AfD with 100 sources, but you read their best five and none are any good, then it's fine to refuse to exhaustively read the other 95 sources and conclude significant coverage doesn't exist. Otherwise AfD would be completely unworkable – editors could just force articles to be kept by linking unreadably large numbers of sources, regardless of quality. (For clarity, I'm not accusing you of doing this).

I am not convinced that merely being "close to the original" is ever capable of causing a work to be produced by the government. I'm not saying the Halsbury summaries are literally produced by the government. I'm saying they appear to be so close to the actual instrument their content isn't independent. Analogy: sources particularly prone to churnalism will sometimes write articles that are essentially some company or organisation's press release very thinly rewritten. When these come up at AfD, we don't accept these to be independent – even though they haven't literally been produced by the company or organisation itself, their content is very closely based on something that has. (For clarity, I'm not saying Halsbury itself is churnalist or otherwise low-quality. I'm saying the summaries it produces are not independent of the instruments they summarise for similar reasons that churnalist pieces aren't independent of the press releases they're based on).

It is the "merge" part of your !vote that concerns me. OK, so why don't we meet in the middle? We clearly have quite different senses of what proportions of statutory instruments are notable, and thus whether mergers are warranted – but can we at least agree on rescoping the lists to cover just the notable statutory instruments? Look at it this way: if you're right and there really are too many notable statutory instruments to justify merging the lists, then the lists will stay in the same structure as they are, they'll just be covering the statutory instruments we can actually find adequate sourcing for. – Teratix ₵ 06:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per James500 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above, and past discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note that if you haven't, look at the collapsed Extended content because this is a gigantic bundled nomination. In fact, it is so big that no matter what the consensus is, XFDcloser will not be able to handle this closure and it will have to be taken care of manually by the closer which should take quite a lot of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed List of regulatory reform orders from this list as it was not tagged as being part of this AFD and I imagine the article creator was not notified of it being part of this discusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fair notice that I started some of the pages which are nominated. Nonetheless, statutory instruments are often notable even though they are generally specific and specialist in nature. These lists, I believe, have the potential to be much more than a directory of external links (indeed, I think they could end up with a great deal of useful content) and as such I think it would be a mistake to delete them. Although I'm not totally against the idea of entries being limited to those being deemed as notable, I don't think it would then function well as a list of SIs in practice. Better to expand the context on these pages so that users have informative content than get rid of it altogether. Gazamp (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus seems to be trending toward Keep, this discussion involves a major change in scope, affecting not just the 157 nominated pages, but hundreds more of the same type. I believe it requires, as a minimum, a broader debate, perhaps on Portal:Law, and ideally an RfC to determine general inclusion criteria for this type of list. I don't see it as appropriate to adjudicate this based on the views, valid as they may be, of the 13 participants in this AfD. I'll relist it for now to keep it open, in the hope that it will be overtaken by events involving a broader discussion, making this decision both easier and less prone to relitigation. Can one of the participants here please take the lead on a discussion/RfC at Portal:Law? Thank you.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This does not require broader discussion, especially not if the objective of such discussion is forum shopping to overturn the clear consensus established here. The consensus is unambiguously "keep", because there are no policy, guideline or consensus based arguments for any other outcome, since LISTN is impossible to dispute and you cannot merge a page that is more than 200kB long. The question of whether any particular piece of information should be included in any particular list is outside the scope of AfD. The page size of the lists would have to be reduced before any merger proposal could be made, and we cannot provisionally agree to merge a page after a proposed rewrite if we do not know how large the page will be after the rewrite. The ideal solution would be for this to simply go away and stop wasting community time with proposals that have no realistic chance of consensus. Portal:Law is not a forum for the discussion of particular articles. Discussion of these lists goes on their own talk pages. James500 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with James500 - it seems very odd to me to keep this discussion open or even widen it when there seems to be a consensus to keep these pages. I think preempting relitigation with an RfC (surely a relitigation in itself?) would be a waste of everyone's time; I know that there are things I'd rather be doing than rehashing all of this somewhere else. Gazamp (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand the urgency. The articles do not contain any offending material that requires them to be deleted right away, and are right where they'd be if they end up being kept. We're discussing the fate of 157 articles that editors spent thousands of hours creating and copyediting. I see nothing excessive in wanting to solicit more than the 13 participants who voiced their opinion here before making such a far-reaching decision. Frankly, I find the requests to hurry the process to be tendentious. Owen× ☎ 15:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]