< July 15	July 17 >

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. Star Mississippi 16:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supremacy 1914[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There has been issues with notability for a good while. Citation 1 and 3 seem to be linked to the subject. Citation 2 won't open. They use a lot of puffery and seem to let you play the game. Citation 4 also seems to be selling the game to some extent. Citation 5 does not look reliable and looking up Game Genetics leads to nothing. Citation 6 seems to be the most independent but look suspiciously similar to 4. Citation 7 is dead. Citation 8 is a forum. Citation 9 is independent though I have doubts on how reliable it is. Citations 10 and 11 look to either be online arcades or mods for the game. Citation 12 is the website. Being most optimistic, it barely passes wp:N ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.' I think it's been relaunched on mobile, there are some sources for that, but nothing in RS we'd use for gaming articles. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Game fails the Metacritic test and is just as non-notable now as it was in the first AfD, with a total lack of reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. The lack of citations and the big size is alarming... --TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom --Devoke water 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete plus no additional work has been done on the article since its nomination to address the problems brought up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Noshad Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just enough different that it's not a G4, but no evidence that factors at the prior AfD have changed. Would be happy with draft space, but creator is not willing to wait for AfC so we're here. Star Mississippi 20:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 20:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Note to closer, discussion with the creator at Talk:Imran Noshad Khan and flagging their keep opinion so it's not missed. Star Mississippi 21:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sources unrelated to the Pepsi incident are all WP:PASSING. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PASSING is just a passing mention in the article while having been quoted along with a statement must be different from that. IBuNeriPK (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Brigade (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Supermen of America[edit]

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

Not notable, only cites one source. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Popular culture, and United States of America. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage from a reliable source (staff editor of Nesarama/GamesRadar+) [1]. I think the likely best option is a redirect (perhaps with a small amount merged) to Brigade (comics), but I'm open to other options. —siro χ o 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, of the source that I can access, Comicvine, it does not look like it supports notability. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Can't find anything on this when checking for sources, and seems completely not notable. While this article, List of teams and organizations in DC Comics, seems like a heavy WIP, it is also probably the best redirect target, though it lacks information on this group as of now. A selective merge of information from this article into there seems like the best way to preserve what's listed here. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. as it looks like most of the problematic content has now been purged from the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Want of a Nail[edit]

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

DICDEF followed by an EXAMPLEFARM. Great for TVTropes, but not WP. Plenty of sources, but all they do is provide examples, which by itself does not confer notability. Perfect example of CARGO. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely could stand improvement, but it is a proverb that has been discussed as such [2][3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms uses it as an example of a rhetorical climax. It is also cited as illustrating how to make a sorites using symploce. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since it was pretty clear that we could prune the example farm and write a sourced analysis with these sources, meaning that we surely are now in the realm of AfD not being cleanup rather than having to blow up everything and start over, I went ahead and did that. It's not a great article by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not TV Tropes either. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially a transplant of a TVtropes article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - A well known proverb is very likely a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. "List of every time a well known proverb was referenced", which is what this mess is, is not. I was initially going to suggest just stubifying it by removing the example farm and just leaving in the lead and analysis section, but then I saw those are both completely unsourced. No prejudice against actually creating a genuine article on the topic after deletion, but the current version should not remain. Rorshacma (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still not a great article, but its now more or less what I had in mind when I was considering suggesting stubifying it. As such, I'm striking my delete vote. Rorshacma (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss improvements made during the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If just an ordinary frequent user is permitted to comment, I would like to see this article kept in. I just used it in communicating with a friend who pulled ancient hand made nails out of an ancestral home in Norway. They were not horse shoe nails, but I thought the proverb was apt just for our amusement. I also did find another source that turned the proverb into an essay on the need for organizations, from armies to corporations, to pay attention to the smallest details to avoid disaster. This is the link in case it can provide substance. https://web.citadel.edu/root/images/commandant/assistant-commandant-leadership/for-the-want-of-a-nail.pdf Perhaps it might also apply to the case of the small cracked insulation tile that doomed the Challenger space shuttle in 1986 (and of course I checked this with Wikipedia just now). 2601:152:4001:4370:CDD3:529D:2E57:8B9F (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known proverb, meets WP:GNG per sources from XOR'easter. Link farm has been removed. ARandomName123 (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G5 Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bukhara (999)[edit]

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

"The Kara-Khanids had came back to Bukhara in 999.[12][13] the Kara-Khanids had managed to defeat the Samanids[14][15] and had sent them running."

Thats literally the only mention of the battle itself in the article "Battle of Bukhara (999)".

Fails WP:NHISTORY and WP:GNG. Created by the same user who made this [5]. And like that article, this one too suffers from WP:CITATION issues and thus WP:VER. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Ciochetto[edit]

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

Seven appearances for the Guam national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The source in the article is a dead link, but seems to be a blog by looking at the URL. JTtheOG (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Oceania, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. That one dead link appears to be an unreliable source. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 12:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Parker[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. All sources in the article are unsuitable: source 1 is Who's Who, which is unreliable, source 2 is basically a CV, and source 3 is a Downing Street memo. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per source assessment above. Lacking independent sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources. User:Let'srun 21:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wonder if a redirect to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the Netherlands would be worthwhile as it is conceivable people might search for the subject in connection with that post. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Amended by Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not the only thing she is known for. She's also been high commissioner to Cyprus. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - he did hold both roles and it is not clear one is more important than the other (and also his position at the ICC would also be a conceivable reason for searching). Given the importance of all 3 roles and is odd that there are not more sources covering him, though this can sometimes happen with diplomats. Dunarc (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator lays out a good case, so I won’t repeat, but this article does not meet WP:GNG criterion and should be deleted unless more substantial RS news coverage can be found. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Aruba international footballers. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eldrick Celaire[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Two appearances for the Aruba national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Aruba international footballers. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edre Elskamp[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. One appearance for the Aruba national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Aruba international footballers. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio Connor[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. One appearance for the Aruba national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Aruba international footballers. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Brison[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. One appearance for the Aruba national football team. Played in the Aruban league before playing in the 6th, 7th, and 8th tiers of Dutch football. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Aruba international footballers. Star Mississippi 15:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Geerman[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Two appearances for the Aruba national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Law Society, University College Cork[edit]

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

Student society that has only been covered by itself, or mentioned in passing as a venue BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Education, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least for now, does not seem to meet WP:GNG, and in itself one student society of one university is not an obvious article candidate without significant activity well-covered. SeoR (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to UCC: without significant coverage most such university and college societies are not notable enough for their own article. ww2censor (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Kentish[edit]

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

Three appearances for the Anguilla national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romell Gumbs[edit]

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

Two appearances for the Anguilla national football team. No indication of notability. Despite playing in England, I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTheme[edit]

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

No indication of notability after 16 years. ... discospinster _talk 18:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero citations or sources have been added after ten days anda couple-dozen edits. Last1in (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly a marketing page. The only significant contributor to the page was Spidean, and the software's homepage was "www.spidean.net" (which is now parked). On top of that, the only references to the plugin I can find are a CVE report, a forum post by the author, and a couple pages of this book that appear to be copied directly out of its documentation. There's clearly not enough here to claim notability even if the style and COI issues were addressed. Box of wolves (feed) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above , fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Lithuanian Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lithuania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep- ~~Only one source and that appears to be a primary. Article had languished for nearly three years.~~ Important safety tip: It can take an AfD to get the sources. Thank you, Bearas! Last1in (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New sources added, therefore reasoning to delete the article due lack of sources is no longer valid Bearas (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - Found these sources in various local media within 10 minutes [6], [7], [8], [9]. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Respublik (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Respublik, all references added to the article.

Keep article improved with additional references added, and it does indeed meet WP:GNG. Simple google search comes back with 21k of findings in Lithuanian media alone and countless in English. Bearas (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearas and Respublik; meets GNG. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 17:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seimata Chilia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Chilia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lauru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Wilson (gymnast)[edit]

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

This article seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. Although she is in the early stages of her career and has received some team medals, she does not meet the WP:NGYMNAST criteria which require individual medals. Also, there isn't enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG criteria. Mercenf (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG. Only sources I could find lacked WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 14:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nom is vandalism. 5 medals at international events for team usa... team USA website is as credible of a reference as they come. She is inherently notable.The published medal results from these events make her inherently notable.. Just like playing in the NFL or another major league. 69.238.162.225 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism comment. Has tagged team the entire set of pages in editing war.. Both are from upwork.. He nominated 2 pages and didnt even leave the required notifications on the talk pages. This is vandalism. This user has over 5m views on his pages.. All articles are well referenced before they were attacked. 135.148.232.242 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to afford time to gain some notability. It is very seldom I suggest draftification, however I do think an article on this athlete may be just a little WP:TOOSOON, yet can't think of an appropriate redirect target in the meantime (though i'd support either as an WP:ATD). The next Olympics is a good shout, but is still a year away. Strictly speaking, as per nomination, she doesn't quite meet the criteria set out at WP:NGYMNAST yet. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG. I also note that the article is a product of paid editing and the article (and this AFD) are being edited by ipsocks of the blocked paid editor. - MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've temporarily semi-protected this AFD due to persistent IP-hopping !votes from a blocked editor. I recognize protection on an XFD page is somewhat unusual, but given the circumstances I believe it is the least disruptive option. If any legitimate editor has an issue, please reach out on my talkpage and I'm happy to discuss. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neat and Tidy: Adventures Beyond Belief (TV series)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Although plenty of records and database entries of this show exist, none that I could find constitute the in-depth coverage required to establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In case there is any confusion, the article is now titled simply Neat and Tidy: Adventures Beyond Belief. While Actualcpscm was nominating for deletion, I was in the middle of moving the page title because the disambiguation was unnecessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter that the series included several notable actors and writers (hence their Wikis). Besides, there are so many non-notable subjects with articles on Wikipedia, I have to ask where to draw the line? Darian2009 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not WP:inherited. If there are articles with non-notable subjects, you might consider proposing those for deletion; the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a particularly sound argument to support notability. The line is drawn by WP:N, WP:GNG, the subject-specific notability guidelines, and relevant community consensus. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the rare inclusion of many original Elvis music makes it notable. Darian2009 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the fact that this claim is currently unsourced, the relevance of this needs to be established through reliable sources, not the original research of individual editors. I won‘t discuss this here further to avoid the appearance of WP:BLUDGEON, but I‘d be happy to continue the discussion on my talk page; feel free to reach out there with any questions or concerns. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Also, the arguements that it has notable actors, famous music, and "other non-notable subjects" have articles are all irrelevant as WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Smithies, Sandy (1988-02-12). "Watching brief". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Neat and Tidy. 1: Adventures Beyond Belief (Channel 4, 6 0) Sandwiched between the two halves of the Chart Show like a nice slice of ham, this wildly camp new comedy is worth taking the earplugs out for: it's not a sound track of original Elvis recordings. Wimpish hero Nick Neat (Skyler Cole) zooms off around the attractive European locations on his Harley Davidson, getting into all sorts of comic strip scrapes while helping runaway Mafia heiress Tina Tidy (Jill Whitlow) find her long-lost mum; the assorted villains in pursuit include Graham Stark and Elke Sommer."
2. "Elvis on the upbeat". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. 1988-02-12. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "All this and a music soundtrack of original Elvis Presley recordings set the madcap pace of Neat and Tidy (Channel 4, 6pm). It's a five part comedy adventure that is big on bizarre names and locations. For Nick sets off for Italy, with police and villains in hot pursuit, where he meets the daughter of an Italian mobster who is also on the run from heavies Bruno and Fiddler. The pair team up and change their names to something as catchy as everybody else's. They become Nick Neat and Tena. Tidy and charge around the world looking for Tena's mum. With all that energy being expended it has to be worth a look!"
3. "'Neat & Tidy' On The Run: Movie On WMDT Saturday". The Daily Times. 1987-01-03. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""Neat & Tidy," a two-hour TV movie special which combines action, adventure, comedy, bizarre characters and happenings with a musical backdrop of classic Elvis Presley songs, airs on WMDT-TV Channel 47 on Saturday at 11:30 p.m. The movie stars Elke Sommer as the exotic, seductive and villainous Headmistress Bruno, and introduces English actor Skyler Cole as the daring Nick Neat and Jill Whitlow ... as his sexy young sidekick, Tena Tidy. ... Among the several original Elvis Presley recordings featured are "Guitar Man" (the movie's theme), "Night Rider," "Rock A Hula," "Crying In The Chapel," "Jailhouse Rock," "All Shook Up," "It's Now Or Never," "Hound Dog" and "Blue Suede Shoes." "Neat & Tidy" was filmed entirely on location in Southern Spain in and around "Mini-Hollywood," ..."
4. Taylor, Brian (1988-02-12). "Neat and Tidy—with Presley". Hull Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "If you like humour which is bizarre in situations which are highly improbable, Neat and Tidy (C4, 6 pm) is your kind of programme. There's this wimp-like motorcycle mechanic called Nick Neat and a Mafia Goddaughter who rejoices in the name, Tena Tidy. He rescues her and whisks her off on his Harley Davidson with the girl's evil tutor and two hitmen called Scratcher and Smallpiece in pursuit. ... This is made up of a whimsical collection of Elvis Presley classics."
5. "Calling all Elvis fans". Nottingham Evening Post. 1988-02-12. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Neat and Tidy (Four, 6.00) is billed as "an adventure, a comedy, a visual explosion of action and wild humour" and draws on original Elvis Presley recordings for its backtrack." The bizarre series centres around Nick Pratt (Skyler Cole) ..."
6. Macfarlane, Ian (1988-02-12). "Pick of the day: Neat and Tidy". Cambridge Evening News. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Look out for an explosion of action, adventure and wild humour, to the sound of original Elvis Presley recordings, in this new series. Nick Pratt, a motor cycle fanatic and dedicated Elvis fan, is on the run for a murder he did not commit. ... Tena is quickly captured, but Nick unwittingly rescues her and finds himself in even deeper water. She introduces herself as Tena Tidy. Nick changes his name to Neat, and the dynamic duo of Neat and Tidy is born. With Skyler Cole as Nick, Jill Whitlow as Tena, and Thick Wilson as Ten Percent."
7. Rubnikowicz, Renata (1988-02-06). "Highlights of TV and radio". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Neat And Tidy (6.0, C4). Zany, wacky, a cult comedy hit? Well, definitely a jolly first episode, with Mafia connections and Euro locations. Nick Neat hovers over to France to slip the law, and, on a newly-acquired Harley-Davidson rescues distressed damsel, Tena Tidy, who's on the run from school in search of "beer and biology". Troupes of rubber-clad nuns, a Presley soundtrack, and Graham Stark as a dim heavy pop up, too."
8. Vincent Terrace books:
  1. Terrace, Vincent (1997). Experimental Television, Test Films, Pilots, and Trial Series, 1925 Through 1995: Seven Decades of Small Screen Almosts. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 413. ISBN 0-7864-0178-8. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Neat and Tidy—Adventures Beyond Belief. Pilot (Satirical Adventure), 2 hrs., Syndicated, 12/86. Valentena Tidelio, the daughter of a mobster, runs away from her father's jailer, music school conservatory Headmistress Bruno Van Kleef, seeking to find her mother, who was presumed killed in a car accident 15 years ago. Nick Pratt, a mechanic and Elvis Presley freak, who fears he killed his partner during a heated argument, flees, thinking the police are seeking him. By chance Valentena, who pretends to be Tena Tidy and Nick, who uses the alias Nick Neat, meet and team to help each other out. The proposed series was to relate Tena and Nick's outrageous worldwide adventures as they seek Tena's mother and attempt to escape from their relentless pursuer-Headmistress Van Kleef."
  2. Terrace, Vincent (1991). Fifty Years of Television: A Guide to Series and Pilots, 1937–1988. New York: Cornwall Books. p. 504. ISBN 0-8453-4811-6. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Seeking to find her mother, who is presumed killed in a car crash, Valentena Tidelio, a mobster's daughter, runs away from her father's jailer, music school headmistress Bruno Van Kleef. Fearing that he killed his partner, auto mechanic Nick Pratt, flees, thinking the police are seeking him. By chance Valentena, who pretends to be Tena Tidy, and Nick, who assumes the name Nick Neat, meet and team to help each other out. The proposed series was to relate their adventures as they seek Tena's mother (Loretta) and attempt to escape from their relentless pursuer—Headmistress Bruno."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Neat and Tidy: Adventures Beyond Belief to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of sources found, added, and analysed by Cunard which clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic nurture[edit]

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

At best WP:SYN, this monograph was written by a user who was speedily sitebanned due to adding contrarian content to scientific articles. The user also promoted scientific racism, of which this seems to be a subset. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a term that appears to be almost unknown to most geneticists. I would have guessed that the editor who wrote the article had invented it, but I was distressed to see that Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA has article about it. Be that as it may, I don't think Wikipedia should tolerate articles written by sitebanned editors. Athel cb (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have been written to give credence to content in another article now at AfD. No indication whatsoever that this is a notable scientific hypothesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This might not have been picked up by others, but if you look at early versions of the article [10] this is serious copyright violation. Chamaemelum has merely copied word for word the parts of the abstract from certain papers and entire chunks of text from such papers. The copyrighted material was removed by SandyGeorgia but has not been striked for copyright. If you check the diff I provided there is a lot of copyright, but one notable example is half of the abstract of [11]. Chamaemelum was previously told by an admin not to upload copyrighted material because they did it before on the red meat article [12] but they did obviously not listen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed this when I checked the page history. Perhaps best to TNT it. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Chamaemelum is still eager to hide and remove any mention of copyrighted material and warnings from their talk-page [13]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy a couple of those articles are CCx4; have you checked all of them for license compatability? (Even if they're all compatible, it's still plagiarism.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the copyio cannot be removed without leaving anything worthwhile. Genetic nurture is not a very common term, perhaps "indirect genetic effects" is better known. (Example: genes causing variation in maternal behavior -or, say, milk composition- that subsequently affect behavior of the offspring, even though the latter may not carry the alleles responsible for these maternal differences). I have no opinion on the quality of the current article, so if other editors here feel that TNT is needed/warranted, that's fine with me. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to note that this is a mainstream genetics concept and absolutely not a POV fork of anything race related. (Of course, racists will try to use this stuff, as they do with so many other things, but that's another matter). --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to have an article about an obscure term when "indirect genetic effects" is more common and better established. Whatever we say about this topic, we should do it starting from scratch with different words and under a different title. XOR'easter (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It gets slightly more hits in Google Scholar that I was expecting but this is still a one-sided article, with no realistic prospect of becoming neutral, about a very minor topic, under an uncommon name. It says nothing about how widely accepted this concept is or whether it has any critics or rivals. We don't want a walled garden of articles accumulating around race and intelligence where material conducive to "scientific racism" can lurk quietly. Insofar as it is a topic, it can be covered in a paragraph or so elsewhere. I'm not really seeing any need for a redirect from this name to that but I guess I don't object to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DanielRigal. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Even the keep vote here says that they are fine with a delete. Considering the awful state of this article and the WP:POVFORKing shows that we should just get rid of it. jps (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this should actually be a G12 for copyvio. Trejo copyright. Trejo copyvio in first version. Slightly later versions also included copyvio from Wang. There is no version to revert to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(from FTN) Speedy delete as copyvio without prejudice to recreation. Looks like Sandy is right and there is enough copyvio for G12. Aside from that, delete per WP:TNT. But without prejudice to recreation, at the same title, because "genetic nurture" is most certainly a "real thing," a mainstream concept that easily meets WP:GNG, for example 2018 article, 2020 article, 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis, and hundreds more on Google Scholar. (It's not the same thing as "indirect genetic effects," it's a subset, a notable subset subject to scholarly study.) Levivich (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. The term is present in this source [14], for example, but the description in the article seriously misrepresents the scope of its use. Deckkohl (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately as totally unnecessary. Many articles carry topics that would have told the whole story, and even Punnett squares are enough to determine the outcome of a child. Also, according to Commons, it appears that no permission was granted by checking the name of the file, and just because it's CC doesn't mean you can distribute it freely. Can somebody open up an investigation into the file used in this page as well? Thank you, HarukaAmaranth (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. @Actualcpscm: if you want this to improve, let me know. Star Mississippi 14:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics and educational attainment[edit]

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

An orphan POV-fork of race and intelligence written by an editor whose brief career on Wikipedia led to a siteban after fewer than 2,000 edits, due to persistent disruptive editing adding contrarian content in science topics. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Biology, and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just a fork, but from a brief inspection, written to push a particular perspective, and based around the questionable use of the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was my impression too, but it's only an impression, as I don't have the energy to do a more thorough check. For the moment, therefore, I won't vote, but if I do it will probably be D*l*te. Athel cb (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a blatant example of misuse of a source, consider this statement: ...some parents may choose to prioritize immediate pleasures, like vacations, over setting up a college fund for their child. The source cited ([15]) makes no mention of 'vacations', or 'college funds'. It would have been rather absurd to do so for multiple reasons - not least of which being that the primary data being discussed in the source includes contexts where 'college funds' weren't even a thing. Regardless of the merits of the source itself (it looks to me to be an exercise in begging the question, but as someone with a degree in anthropology, I'm always sceptical about 'genes explain everything' theories) it shouldn't be cited for random made-up shit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to read this article, but would like to note that "genetics and educational attainment" is a mainstream subject in the field of behavior genetics. The people involved in this research are not racists or involved in race/IQ/genetics "research". I have no opinion on the quality of this work but it most certainly is not a race and intelligence fork. Of course, this research (like any other research) can be (and likely will be) misused/misinterpreted by "race researchers", but that is another matter. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and draftify: I'm probably not equipped to analyze the scientific merits and accuracy of the article content in detail, but that's not necessary here: even if the article is WP:RUBBISH in its current form and highly susceptible to policy violations (like NPOV issues), that does not affect the notability of the subject. AfD discussions are not the right venue for discussing reworking an article, and articles should not be deleted solely on the basis that they're quite bad. As Randykitty mentioned, this is a mainstream field of research (not WP:FRINGE per se), and while the sources in the article might have been misused or misinterpreted to create the current text, they do establish that the subject has been researched, analyzed, and discussed extensively in highly reliable pulications. This is not a matter for AfD, but for the article talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC) To address the concerns about the current article content: For the time that this article needs to be reworked to be in compliance with NPOV and other relevant policies, it can be draftified. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Delete The article was created by a blocked user who caused disruption on many articles and has added copyrighted material to their article creations. I am not convinced they wrote this article, this was created with 33,165 bytes of text [16] with no other major edits by them and is unlike their other edits. Something is off here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not going through every single reference for this as I don't have time, but I chose one at random and it failed verification. I think TNT applies here, maybe it's a notable article but anything based on this will always be dubious given the other issue is already mentioned. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Sources fail verification, as noted above, and some are simply not up to the purpose when it comes to supporting an article like this (e.g., the two "Neuroscience News" items are press releases). A total rewrite would be necessary, presuming that this is even a good title for the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it is a POVFORK. It's not quite a orphan but close. I can't see any reason to keep this when we already have race and intelligence. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just checked the author's global contributions and it looks like they may have made similar articles in other languages, particularly French. It might be worth somebody checking this out. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polygenic scores for/genome-wide asssociation studies of educational attainment is a very normal, mainstream field of research. See e.g. the second source in the article. Don't really have any idea what you're talking about regarding race and intelligence. Endwise (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since content was created by now-banned editor and is not supported by MEDRS-compliant secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Snow Close. This one ain't even close, folks. jps (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion here and the other AfD. Completely unacceptable. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT without prejudice to recreation - no need to keep this article per other voters above, but without prejudice to recreation by someone else, as the topic "genetics and education attainment" is a notable topic with lots of scholarly coverage, e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], and 67,000 more hits on Google Scholar. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT but per Levivich, this is a notable subject and not necessarily a POVFORK of Race and Intelligence (although the article asis meets that description). Genetics is not the same as race, not a synonym of race. Race is socially constructed, and genetics are biology (and clinal). Neither is educational attainment the same as intelligence. A page on this subject is possible, but this is not that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really like the appeals to the creator of the article, as it is the article itself that is up for discussion, but the content and style of the article are completely inadequate. I also don't see much point in draftifying it, as it would have to be rewritten from scratch to pass AfC. Deckkohl (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not read this article in depth, and I'm neither a scientist nor a professor, but based on other people's perspectives, it's totally unacceptable. There is one thing I find particularly questionable, about how far a child can make in schooling is wholly based off of their parent(s). Also, the article's in-depth analysis is completely off the rails. We already covered this subject with race and academic attainment. HarukaAmaranth (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Undying Land[edit]

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

Nothing on the page to suggest it meets WP:NBOOKS, if there was anything to merge it could go to William Gilmour (writer). Interested to hear if anyone else can show how this book meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. JMWt (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Schweitzer, Darrell (August 1986). Geis, Richard E. (ed.). "The Undying Land". Science Fiction Review. Vol. 15, no. 3 #60. pp. 46–47. ISSN 0036-8377. Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Similarly, a real Lost Race novel cannot be written anymore, because this is no longer 1890. All Mr. Gilmour has managed to do is create a pastiche. He has done so most skillfully, to the extent that, with very minor changes, The Undying Land would pass perfectly for an obscure novel published in All Story in 1911. He has got the whole routine down perfectly: competently readable prose, wooden characterization, impossible dialogue, wild implausibilities, and even a trace of Age of Imperialism racism. (That is, the non-negroid Lost Race is said to be more "clean cut" than regular Africans. A very authentic touch.)"
2. Chow, Dan (January 1992). "The Undying Land". Locus. No. 372. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17. Retrieved 2023-07-17.
  The review is listed here in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. I do not have access to the full text of the review.
3. D'Ammassa, Don (December 1986). "The Undying Land". Science Fiction Chronicle. No. 87.
  The review is listed here in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. I do not have access to the full text of the review.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Undying Land to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cunard's findings. I'll specifically note that adding the references to the article, which has been done, is above-and-beyond conduct per WP:NEXIST. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to the sources added by Cunard. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by Cunard.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 14:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Benbasat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Below the threshold of notablity for a gamer. References are passing mentions and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was nominated as a revenge to my keep votes on their various nominated Afds. This Afd come out within minutes after my votes. Editors please check my edit history and time interactions of this nomination. Okoslavia (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs instead of vaguely saying check my edit history. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR Please see my vote (revision as of 10:53, 16 July 2023) and their nomination (revision as of 11:51, 16 July 2023). Okoslavia (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That could easily be a coincidence. Why would they retaliate against your vote specifically, and not the others? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ G4 per AfD which closed just three days ago. Article so tagged. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, per SarekOfVulcan below. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a discussion going on at ANI. Okoslavia (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete An AFD closed with consensus to delete this three days ago. This version is practically unchanged from the deleted version. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined G4 speedy, not essentially identical. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it without G4 in mind, I am neutral on whether it should stay. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding it very difficult to assess whether the subject is notable from the provided references because they are all in Hebrew. Per WP:NONENG, I think we need some form of summary of what they say. My own search for something in English turned up virtually nothing, which I must admit I find surprising given the assertion he has "over 200,000 subscribers and 49 million views" (the platform is not specified). Dorsetonian (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources that we might call reliable fail to be in-depth (while interviews can be useful for some purposes, a few lines of blurb leading into an interview is not significant coverage). Wikipedia is not a promotional platform for influencers, vloggers, thinkfluencers, or vlogfluencers. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging our good faith Afd participants ,Visviva,Siroxo and Indefensible for their invaluable comments. Okoslavia (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Okoslavia: You do know that canvassing and vote stacking is illegal. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Run them through Google Translate. They are two interviews, one in the group and the rest are passing mention about attending a gamer gig. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not canvassed them but just asking for their opinion. It can be in my favour or in my opppose. Okoslavia (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that you specifically pinged editors that you think would agree with you. There are several types of rigging discussions, not just asking for support outright. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I agree with the source analysis performed by XOReaster above, and my sense is salting will be necessary to avoid having another AfD next week. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the recent deletion of an article on the subject, the lack of much content in this one and the drama this provoked at WP:ANI, at least four of the references are IMO independent, major and reliable sources which provide more than sufficient evidence that the subject is notable. I have reviewed each in turn (current version of the article) with the aid of Google Translate and this is my assessment of them:

cites "Israeli vlogger, TV host and professional gamer", and passes verification. The article itself is about excessive screen time and is an interview with Benbasat who "may not be familiar" but is "a household name in the world of gamers". Ynet is a non-trivial, reliable source. IMO this contributes towards WP:SIGCOV.
also cites "Israeli vlogger, TV host and professional gamer", and passes verification. The article itself is about a discussion at a conference where Benbasat was a panellist and makes only passing mention of him. IMO, this does not contribute towards WP:SIGCOV.
cites "as of November 2022, he has over 200,000 subscribers and 49 million views" and passes verification (except that it is dated November 2021). The article is nominally about an upcoming gaming contest but is actually a bio of two contestants, one of whom is Benbasat. Mako (website) is a non-trivial, reliable source. IMO this contributes towards WP:SIGCOV.
also cites "as of November 2022, he has over 200,000 subscribers and 49 million views" and passes verification for the number of views. It is similar to the previous article except it is in an interview format. It describes Benbasat as one of "Israel's biggest gaming stars". Frogi appears to be a non-trivial reliable source. IMO this contributes towards WP:SIGCOV.
cites "He is a retired soldier who had worked in the high-tech fields before becoming a gamer" and passes verification. The article is nominally about the game Fortnite, but consists of a bio of Benbasat and then his thoughts on the matter. The People and Computers Group appears to be a large media organisation and events organiser. IMO this contributes towards WP:SIGCOV.
cites "He had accompanied the dubbing of The Super Mario Bros. Movie film in the Hebrew version for the Israeli premiere of the film". This rather garbled sentence (I am not quite sure exactly what it is supposed to mean - I think he was somehow involved in the premiere and not the film itself) passes verification; the machine translation of the article says "For the audience of young people and gamers, a unique collaboration was created with YouTube star Mr. Shibolt, who accompanied the dubbing of the film in the Hebrew version; for the Israeli premiere of the film". This, however, is only a passing reference and does not, IMO, contribute towards WP:SIGCOV.

Dorsetonian (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is a WP:SECONDARY sources None of it. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and and as group less so. Secondary sources i.e. " people talking to other people who don't know the individual" provide notability. None of them applies here. Being listed for an event isn't a secondary source either. I suggest you read the WP:BLP policy. scope_creep^Talk 15:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in your argument is that whilst what is directly quoted in an interview is indeed primary, that is not what is happening here. Benbasat is not talking about himself but something else on which he is an acknowledged expert - things we don't even care about. It is the publication which is wrapping these interviews with biography about Benbasat himself, and that is secondary. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Material from Benbasat is still unequivocally non-independent, and that includes comments that aren't in quotation marks but are still relaying his views (e.g. "Benbasat felt") or which are simply paraphrasing an upcoming quote. There are only a few sentences in sources 1, 3, and 4 that provide independent coverage, and they're the routine PROMO bio-blurbs one finds before every interview. Source 5 is even worse, containing just a single sentence of intro; further, it's a guest submission so is not reliable anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Hebrew sources are interviews with routine, shallow intros and little by way of independent content. Doesn't meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources posted above fall slightly short of GNG but there is a little bit that can be built upon if more can be found. I wouldn’t be opposed to moving to draft space as an WP:ATD though that may not be useful as the current version is quite short. I oppose salting at this time as this title has only been deleted once before. Frank Anchor 02:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is supported by limited sources. The sources seem to be tabloid interest pieces that are mostly drawn from primary interviews with the subject, some where he is just a talking head to support the article. Notwithstanding more coverage, it is clear to me that the existing sources don't provide a sufficiently independent and reliable coverage of the subject. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources are there to establish Sigcov. Okoslavia (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more sigcov from Mako (website) here, which says Shai, is a young Israeli who is behind the popular YouTube page Mr. Shibolt , managed to turn his hobby into a fairly profitable profession. Mr. Shibulat managed in less than two months and in an almost completely organic way to reach an impressive number of 17 thousand subscribers (subs) and several videos that crossed the threshold of one hundred thousand views. Shay, who works on normal days at a high-tech company, does not rely on making Mr. Shibulat his main source of income and knows that, like any trend, Fortnite will eventually return to more sane dimensions. In this news portal, independent reporter, Ben Biron is talking about Benbasat. Okoslavia (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to keep offering junk as good refs when they are bad. That doesn't establish notability and it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV by any stretch of the imagination. 100k subscribers is very low. The old standard from about 2008 was that a person had to have 250k to even to get seen. The lastest one I saw from about 2018 was 500k subscribers + normal real WP:SECONDARY coverage, not interviews or profiles or PR, to be called a youtuber. Its not significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, One of his YouTube channel among many is here. Another one for you. Okoslavia (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly shows the failure of before from the nominator side. Okoslavia (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>sigh< Dorsetonian (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. scope_creep^Talk 17:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider is that Hebrew is spoken by only 7-9 million people, which results in relatively lower subscriber/view counts for any Hebrew-language YouTube channel, including Israel's top YouTubers, due to a smaller potential audience. For instance, Benbasat's 227k subscribers represent approximately 3-4% of Hebrew speakers. Mooonswimmer 02:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source which was provided above [21] is not good. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources, as far as I can tell from the machine translation, do not meet the notability criteria. He's not widely known enough for the industry - there are quite a few like him. I don't see much point in draftifying, since the article is small and it would essentially shift all that headache to yet another AfC reviewer. I do not support WP:SALT, however. Deckkohl (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While vloggers can be notable, I do not think that Benbasat is. gidonb (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is where a source assessment table comes in handy. With the number of sources at hand, it should be easy. Also, something to consider when discussing subscribers/views is that Hebrew is only spoken by 7-9 million people, which results in relatively lower subscriber/view counts for any Hebrew-language YouTube channel, including Israel's top YouTubers, due to a smaller potential audience. For instance, 227k subscribers represent approximately 3-4% of Hebrew speakers subscribed to the channel. Mooonswimmer 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer 227K subscribers are only from one of his YouTube channel. His another YouTube channel alone with 287 K subscribers. So from just two channels we have over 500K subscribers, I suspect there might be more channels owned by this guy. Okoslavia (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Asiri[edit]

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

Has only made an inconsequential 3 minute cameo in a league match to date, which seems to be the only reason why this Soccerway stub has been created. The best sources that I can find are Alyaum 1 and Alyaum 2, both of which only trivially mention Asiri as an unused substitute in a reserve match. WP:FPL is no longer relevant and Asiri needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC to have an article. I'm not seeing a passing of either guideline at this moment in time. WP:TOOSOON at best. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching in English and Arabic, nothing beyond passing mentions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Salvatore[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Both sources are not independent, failing WP:IS. One is just social media, and the other are clearly PR Newswire.

I didn't think being in Marquis Who’s Who is an automatic sign that he is notable, more references are required to establish notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Arizona. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find SIGCOV. And yes, Marquis Who's Who is unreliable and can't be used to establish notability, much less solitary articles about getting into Marquis Who's Who. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article is adequately sourced. Nothing in the article confers automatic notability. For accomplishments of this nature, we need GNG-level in-depth reliable independent sourcing and we do not have it. Certainly Marquis doesn't count as reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both sources in the articles are bad (LinkdIn and a press release) and I didn't find any good. Deckkohl (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. We have someone willing to work on it. If that doesn't happen, G13 can Star Mississippi 13:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes High School and Junior college, Kalyan[edit]

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

Only primary sources provided. No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listed in the usual database sites like Uniapply but nothing addressing the topic in the necessary depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
move As you all said that this article should be deleted but i think it can stand alone with the perfect reliable source for that i need some time to do it so please move to draft articleMICHAEL 942006 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While leaning delete, I note MICHAEL 942006's belief the article can be developed. I don't support draftify as this is not a new page - it has been here since 2011. However, sourcing need not be in the article to keep it - it merely needs to be shown that reliable sources exist. If you have such sources, noting them here would be a good idea so that we can evaluate them. If there is at least some evidence of notability, and it still does not rise to meeting WP:GNG then redirect (to List of Christian schools in India) might be a suitable alternative to deletion that would preserve page history should sources come to light sufficient to develop the page. The AfD has a couple of days to run, so I will see if I can find anything too, and will post a !vote closer to the close date. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Id Tech 7[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Merko (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. Merko (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like an ok WP:SPLIT, and also probably meets GNG/NSOFT on its own. [22][23], and note that there is a lot of secondary coverage of an interview that a developer gave (i.e. not the interview itself, but secondary coverage thereof), eg [24][25]. —siro χ o 10:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogamer article isn't inherently about id Tech 7. GND-Tech is a listicle which has passing mentions of id Tech, let alone id Tech 7. TechRadar and Vice articles are blogspam. Merko (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable (proprietary) software product used in a notable game (Doom Eternal). The engine has a sufficient amount of reporting on its own, but also there is a lot of reporting about the way it was used in the game. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples? Merko (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I never actually played the any games created with Id Tech 7, so can't judge how accurate the reporting is, however I believe the following sources should be usable:

- Doom Eternal ushers in idTech 7, bloody new powers (Ars Technica - a tech news and editorial reviews site, generally considered reliable in technology matters, so probably is OK in gaming too)

- Doom Eternal analysis: how id Tech 7 pushes current-gen consoles to the limit (Eurogamer - gaming news site)

- Doom Eternal on Stadia looks great - but the lag is just too high (Eurogamer - same gaming news site) Anton.bersh (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in relation to other articles on Wikipedia, this is relatively notable. It's well referenced. I can't see a reason to delete this article. (Although the article itself could be improved). - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article could be improved. Unfortunately, low quality is typical for most consumer software/technology product articles on Wikipedia, so it is sufficiently decent in its category. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midhilesh Sunder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sourcing requirements says that to meet the respective guideline, subject needs to have WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Besides this source, there is nothing much available for the subject. Moreover the badminton guideline WP:NBAD which clearly says that a podium finish in world tour tournaments is required to meet it, this subject has had achievements limited to district and zonal level competitions, not even in national level. This raises the question of merit of keeping an article like this, and it's value to this encyclopaedia. Thankyou. zoglophie 09:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton, India, and Kerala. zoglophie 09:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't seem to find any significant coverage online. Fails to meet WP:NBLP or WP:NBAD. Article cites 4 sources total, all of which fail WP:NBASIC. One is just a profile, one leads to nothing, one is just a page of results of matches, and one seems to be an interview. ARandomName123 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I find the editor arguing for Keep to be persuasive in addressing the concerns of the nomination. Now, if we could just move the sources from the talk page and this discussion into the article, it will be less likely that there will be a return trip to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Agrebi[edit]

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

Mr.weedle PRODed this page in May. A user posted sources to the talk page. However, these, and others, are no more than routine coverage. Let me know if there is some volleyball-specific consensus that I am unaware of. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sports. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, the rule: WP:NBASIC reminds us that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I would note at the outset that the guideline does not provide for significant coverage to be ignored merely because it is "routine". (I would say that glancing mentions in match reports are both routine and excludable -- but excludable because the brief and uninformative mention does not reach the sigcov threshold, not because of routineness alone.) I know nothing of Tunisian media or volleyball so I am in no place to evaluate any other properties of these sources, but the links posted to Talk ([26], [27]), which both relate to Agrebi's transfer to Nancy, are quite brief but appear to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold of addressing the article subject directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Here is another on the same lines with a mention of a seemingly nontrivial distinction (best net midfielder at Mediterranean Games); here is a considerably longer piece (935 words). All are dedicated entirely to the article subject; all deal with his career rather than with incidental occurrences in individual games or the like. Based on this, unless there are some underlying problems with all of these sources, I would consider NBASIC to be met. -- Visviva (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Music Gallery[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Music. Theroadislong (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry I should probably have tagged this with speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Although I'm curious at how the nominator found AFD on their 5th edit. And thanks to the anonymous IP editor who actually tagged the article. Maybe there should be a higher bar to nominate pages for deletion...but that's a discussion for another forum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hendrycks[edit]

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

Notability: the subject is insignificant and the page was written like a promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for personal curriculum vitae Zusf (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The wording may need to be changed, but being covered in The Boston Globe is note-worthy. APK whisper in my ear 05:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of whether the page met notability guidelines was raised before by another user, but we agreed that the subject meets the notability criteria for academics. Enervation (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF. Thriley (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Gomez[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG. All sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. GuardianH (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG standards. This is an article from Puerto Rico's largest newspaper. This article from another PR newspaper mentions "Sylvia Gomez will be recognized with a Silver Circle Emmy by the Suncoast Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, in recognition of her career of more than 50 years in television", which seems noteworthy. APK whisper in my ear 05:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Frankly, with the amount of reliable sources there and of sources that are considered major, reliable newspapers, this surprises me. I did not expect this article to be up for deletion. I think the nominator is unaware that El Vocero, El Nuevo Dia and Primera Hora are Puerto Rico's three largest newspapers and considered reliable sources.Antonio Madonna Ringwald Martin (queeeee?) 20:28, 16 July, 2023 (UTC)

Keep Sylvia Gomez is a notable Puerto Rican television journalist and show host and meets WP:GNG standards. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage is a bit piecemeal, but in total I think it meets WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. My tendency when things like User:Siroxo rewriting this article occur is to relist this article but I think I'm too liberal with relistings so I'll close this now as No consensus instead as the guidelines suggest we do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lorrie Lynch[edit]

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

Looks like page was made with minimal sources long ago and by the subject of the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some cursory searching of this subject turns up enough to convince me. For example,Exploring journalism and the media has 17 citations per Google Scholar, including a review [28] published in a journal. I also see some sigcov here: [29], and other evidence of influence in subject's field: [30][31][32][33]. Note, some text from the apparent COI does remain and should probably be rewritten/verified. —siro χ o 09:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She should qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) because she has written several textbooks. She was a founder of and a journalist at USA Today and she wrote several textbooks, which should qualify for "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" under Wikipedia:Notability (people). Starlighsky (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]
Delete - nothing here to suggest notability. Writing books does not qualify, not does working for a newspaper. Deb (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources brought up in this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe draftify, not sure there is enough there but seems borderline. Noticed the subject also seems to have contributed to her article briefly in 2008. - Indefensible (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken a pass on the article. Still needs work but it's in a better state now. I stick with my !vote after further investigation. —siro χ o 05:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck delete vote above per Siroxo. Hesitant to vote keep still but will not stand in the way of that. - Indefensible (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Admittedly, there are lots of other academics with articles on this site about which this could also be said, but this article does not seem to establish notability under WP:GNG guidelines. However, I won’t object if there is consensus to keep. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramrajya (2022 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable movie. The only press it released was because the movie stars Rakul Preet Singh's brother. Did not receive reviews from any major publication post release and therefore fails WP:NFILM Jupitus Smart 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Hinduism, and India. Jupitus Smart 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least 2 reviews, one here promising the film will go unnoticed and one in the Times of India, titled "This Ramrajya is not worth a cinema ticket'.MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 07:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we consider the Times of India review, the Filminformation source is just a blog and not considered reliable according to our standards WP:ICTFSOURCES. It would therefore not pass the standard for 2 reviews from reliable sources.Jupitus Smart 17:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input but I’m convinced it does, I’m afraid. For a better assessment of Film Information, see their page bottom About Us or read this, or Komal Nahta. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 14:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make your assumptions though it does not align with what we generally accept. And Komal Nahta owning Filminformation does not impart any automatic notability to the website as notability is not inherited. And looking at the review's quality it appears to not have been written by Komal Nahta (it just mentions Filminformation as the author) compared to other articles like this - [34] which explicitly mentions him as the author. Jupitus Smart 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any assumption, and my point is that I do think the film meets the criteria generally accepted. Here too, I ask you to kindly permit me to leave it at that. Thank you. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 16:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld which concerns this. Socking by a probable paid syndicate. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hundred Bucks, where the same comments have been posted. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 16:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one editor who believes that the sources are sufficient and one editor who doesn't. We need to hear from more editors, especially those who are well acquainted with Film notability standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Interesting case of a film whose pre-release coverage seems to have been overwhelmingly vaster than its near zero post-release coverage. As to rules, NFILM provides some guideposts but defers entirely to the WP:GNG on substance. So the real question is whether the film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notably, while WP:NFF cautions us against overly hasty article creation for films that have not yet been released, there is no rule that states that pre-release coverage does not count toward notability for a film that has been released. The pre-release coverage here includes pieces in ICTF-approved outlets, including e.g. Indian Express. We also have these two interesting pieces from The Free Press Journal, the ICTF's view of which is not entirely clear to me but which it at least discusses alongside other reputable news sources. (While both of these last two contain a substantial interview component, as entertainment journalism often does, WP:INTERVIEWS cautions us not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems to me that all of these pieces contain sufficient actual reporting to meet the sigcov threshold of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content..) On the whole, I wouldn't call this a slam dunk. But construing the rules flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose, it seems to me that the article subject meets the minimum requirements of the GNG and thus NFILM. -- Visviva (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva. The coverage seems sufficient to support an article. It is pretty limited in both quantity and quality but in my opinion it's enough. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Agriculture in Maryland. There were two Merge target mentioned and this one seemed to have more support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry cultivation in Maryland[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Incredibly niche. According to this article, it covers cultivation of strawberries on "210 acres" of land — out of Maryland's 2,000,000 acres of cultivated land. This is not a significant industry in Maryland. And its focus is even more niche: diseases of strawberries in Maryland. SilverLocust (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Maryland. SilverLocust (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems well-sourced, but indeed the topic is a bit niche. I wonder if an appropriate move or merge target can be found, otherwise keep. All great Wikipedia topics start somewhere, and WP:NOTPAPER. —siro χ o 10:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the sources do not relate to Maryland, with the exception of the University of Maryland Extension material, the USDA census info (which just shows that the topic is not notable), and the source "First Report of Clover Yellow Edge and STRAWB2 Phytoplasmas in Strawberry in Maryland." SilverLocust (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a merge to Strawberry would be appropriate, but it may be worth evaluating. Perhaps a move Strawberry cultivation with a subsection dedicated to regional cultivation. —siro χ o 21:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be entirely fine with me. Or Strawberry cultivation in the United States. There is already Strawberry cultivation in California, which is definitely notable. For context, "In the United States, fresh strawberries are primarily grown in California (roughly 90 percent annually) and Florida (about 8 percent), followed by New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington." (USDA). SilverLocust (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could pass muster as an encylopedic topic if the content was more specifically tailored to Maryland. Better rewritten with less technical material? Most of the content on diseases and spraying likely applies to strawberry cultivation in any location. If strawberry growing was an important agricultural pursuit in Maryland historically, then it could be notable. There's some big claims regarding historic strawberry production in this article Marion Station, Maryland, but how reliable they are is perhaps debatable. Doesn't seem of great importance nowadays — no mention of strawberries in Maryland#Agriculture. May be sufficient sources to meld together an article, e.g. https://collections.digitalmaryland.org/digital/collection/sovf/id/162/ for one. Need more time to look into this. Rupples (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't decide whether there's enough to write a fully fledged article on this topic or not. As things stand most of the sources included are not specific enough to fit in with the article's title. It's not absolutely clear where this article fits in. If considering a merge, is it better merged to something like "Agriculture in Maryland" or "Strawberry cultivation in the US"? Rupples (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but possible merge into List of strawberry diseases - ? Denaar (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digging Further, there are individual pages on each of the diseases already, so this kind of info should probably move all the way to those disease pages? Denaar (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft and refactor. After a little bit of digging, I note that we have one other state-based strawberry cultivation article, which is Strawberry cultivation in California (which cultivates the bulk of strawberries in the country). Nonetheless, many northeastern U.S. states have smaller but longstanding strawberry cultivation industries, so I would make this the cornerstone of an article on Strawberry cultivation in the Northeastern United States, also covering the activities to this end in Maine, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, West Virginia, and Virginia (all of which have events listed at Strawberry festival). BD2412 T 03:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest some sort of merge or re-think. I don't think the article works as it is. Too much of it is a secondary review of primary literature on strawberry diseases (we are supposed to be tertiary, not secondary), and the list of pesticides is uncomfortably close to being a specific "how-to" guide for strawberry growers in Maryland. Overall, I think the subject of strawberry growing in the US would be better covered by a general article that includes reference to the various strawberry growing states and their particular individual situation, rather than trying to wring an article out of rather little maryland-specific information. Elemimele (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Agriculture in Maryland (which I have conveniently unredirected and expanded) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is a consensus to Merge but several different targets are mentioned in this discussion and I don't think the closer should randomly select which. Also a suggestion to Draftify it there is additional support for that option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agriculture in Maryland per Horse Eye's Back seems okay, the main article Maryland#Agriculture needs a wiki link as well. - Indefensible (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, best option for the time being, since it exists. —siro χ o 03:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.. was literally about to write the same thing written above. Suggest a merge with Maryland#Agriculture. It lacks the notability to stand alone as it’s own article, but the information could compliment the information already present at the Maryland#Agriculture section quite nicely. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I like the idea of a larger-scale strawberry cultivation article, but in the short term I think this is better housed at Maryland#Agriculture. Strawberry cultivation in California seems to stand on its own quite comfortably. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Agriculture in Maryland per Horse Eye's Back. Just the merge target we need -- I was just going to observe that a paragraph on strawberry farming might be a bit undue in the Maryland article. It would definitely be good to have regional articles on strawberry cultivation as well, but for the time being this seems like a good home for this content. -- Visviva (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters#D.B. Russell with a reminder that the article will always be in the history if sources are found. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D.B. Russell[edit]

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

Sources used in the article are either primary or sources talking about the casting of the character. A quick Google search gives more results about the show and the actor (understandably) rather than the character himself, so it doesn't prove notability. I might be wrong, so I will be putting this to AfD instead. Spinixster (chat!) 01:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep. Reasonably longstanding and central character on a huge show. The fact that sources discuss the actor is of little importance, if they are discussing the actor's performance of the character. BD2412 T 03:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 The problem is that just because the character is the main character of a popular show doesn't mean that the character is notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Unless there are sources talking about the character's notability outside of the show, I don't think the character warrants a page. Spinixster (chat!) 03:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These will do: "The Most Heartbreaking Russell Moment From CSI", Looper (February 8, 2022); "The Important CSI Character You Probably Forgot Peri Gilpin Played, Looper (October 5, 2022). BD2412 T 04:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 Plot summaries are trivia do not prove notability (see MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NOTTVTROPES) I’ve already seen these two sources when doing my Google search. Spinixster (chat!) 04:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be asking for something that you don't want to find, then. These sources present discussion of "the character himself" (in the context of plots, because in what other context would you expect to find such discussion), which is exactly what you had requested in the nomination. Are you looking for something more along the lines of a dissertation on the meaning of Hamlet's soliloquy? BD2412 T 05:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 You should look at some other character pages for example. NCIS has some pretty good character pages, like Ziva David or Abby Sciuto. Those pages have their problems, but there is a visible Reception section that shows their impact.

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) yet? From that page: Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details. The majority of the article is made up of plot summaries, and there is no discussion about reception. The casting section can easily be merged into the main article.

I see that Siroxo has pointed out a source that can be used, but more sources would be needed to prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 07:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see some analysis of the character's impact on the show as part of an analysis of cop shows [35] —siro χ o 05:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the source, and it seems like it talks about the show's impact rather than the character's. Spinixster (chat!) 08:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete oh this is a tough one. DB is indeed a main character, but his impact lasted only three seasons, particularly in a time when the show was beginning to lose interest. I found one Reuters article that covers Ted Danson's impact of the character outside the show, but it is not in-depth at all. Unfortunately, it does not meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement of an article. Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are sources discussing when Danson took over as the lab director on CSI, but nothing discussing the character at length. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing convincing is presented here or in the article, but some folks suggest there should be. SOFTDELETE would help to preserve this for the eventuality someone will eventually find such sources. Casting history could be merged even now but where? It's pretty trivial information overall. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters per BD2412 + nom. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. I'd close this as Soft Deletion but this article was already PROD'd and de-PROD'd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Jong-ho[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've given a search for him in Korean with no results at all. :3 F4U (they /it) 08:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if anyone really isn't finding any web hits for the name 안정호, they should double-check the search query because that's a pretty common name. That said, I can only find enough glancing mentions in the South Korean press to verify participation as a midfielder in the North Korean national team and Amnokgang Sports Club. I do find it a bit odd that I can't come up with any mentions at all from North Korean sources (the only Google hits from Rodong Sinmun and KCNA for this Korean name relate to a composer). I think it is rather obvious that deletions of this kind diminish our value as an encyclopedia. But I have come to find standing athwart the diminishment of the project yelling "Stop!" rather unrewarding, so I suppose I'll just abstain. -- Visviva (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, I didn't get the team name right in my search! My bad. I do see some results now, but still none with significant coverage. :3 F4U (they /it) 23:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to McGill University#Student organizations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Students' Society of McGill University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for organizations. Most sources are primary or exclusively local, with a direct connection to the subject. A previous AfD done back in 2004 kept the article. It has no notability outside of McGill University, and is no different from other student organizations like that of other universities which don't have respective articles. GuardianH (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found some articles: 1, 2, 3. Think probably merging back into McGill University#Student life is best, there is a lot there already though. - Indefensible (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to McGill University#Student organizations as a GNG failure. The references cited in the article consist of a bunch of primary sources as well as some passing mentions in relation to a brief culture war slapping contest. The main article already contains plenty of information on this body, so there's no need for any information to be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This was actually a challenging discussion as some of those advocating Delete had issues with the style and tone of the article content which can be improved over time. But those arguing to Keep the article didn't make a very compelling rebuttal to the adequacy of the sourcing and saying they are "fairly reliable" isn't a ringing endorsement. I suggest starting from scratch in Draft space to overcome the problems of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manakpur[edit]

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

Numerous source reliability and verification issues. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Source are fairly reliable and more sources can be added. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Can you elaborate on the source issues? We can amend these. Usingh0663 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

150.129.164.94 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Most of the issues that you have provided can be solved by editing the page with more reliable sources or removing info that can't be verified. 142.186.156.55 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striked as a suspicious new IP vote; reasonable in my opinion as sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rampant in this area of Wikipedia. If this was done in err, an uninvolved editor in good standing or an admin should revert and unstrike. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suthasianhistorian8

that was my ip account.I accidentally logged out while casting my vote. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puffy language and there are no sources discussing this "battle". I can't find anything discussing this event in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Encounter would be a better word since that is what most sources cited say. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same article with different name -> Operation Mand & Battle of Manakpur is not a WP:COMMONNAME title... You won't find RS with this title.150.129.164.94 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Mand can be found. Check all the sources. A Minister of Punjab gave an entire interview about Operation Mand. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to say, This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Operation Mand. This cannot be counted as a WP:SPINOFF. 150.129.164.94 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Manakpur has no connection to Operation Mand except for Brahma being involved. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suthasianhistorian8 Why aren’t you striking this as you did ones that were in favour of keeping it? Seems a little hypocritical to me.

You said,

” suspicious new IP vote; reasonable in my opinion as sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rampant in this area of Wikipedia.”

Does this one now apply to that logic? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 150* IP has been active since at least April [36]-[37]-[38], but who knows for certain how long they've been contributing here?-[39]. If you still feel apprehensive about their vote, you're free to strike their comment and let an admin or an uninvolved editor decide if their vote ought to stand as I did. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I find it impossible to believe that 25-30 people could have killed 2,000 police. Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed that. It said Brahma had 5 groups of 25-30, so I have changed it to 125-150. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It might be possible to salvage this article (emphasis on 'might'). The WP:RSs cited don't seem call it the "Battle of Manakpur" and the article as a whole is hagiographical in both tone and content. I also share Mztourist's scepticism of the claims made in it -- 150 people fighting their way through twenty-thousand police and killing 2k of them? In 1986? That would have headlined every international news source, not be buried on page 125 of a defence review article. On the other hand, it's only two weeks old, there are a half-dozen editors working on it, and there is no urgency to kill that effort. A new title drawn directly from the sources and a rewrite (with explicit, direct quotes on the numbers for both sides) could add value to Wikipedia. On the other hand, come back in a few months and if it's not a solid article, I'll have no trouble !voting to get rid of it. Last1in (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Non-notable war incident. I looked at the sources and none of them discussing the subject of this article, there is no mention of casualities as stated in the article and there is no evidence if this war ever happend. A Google search for the term "Battle of Manakpur" yield just 11 results and one of them is a Reddit post created by the author of this article. Fails WP:GNG 1.23.251.175 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)— 1.23.251.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~~(striked as possible double-vote, user can clarify if it is or isn't) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Please note that this looks like a copy of Operation Mand created by the user and the notability of that article is also questionable so I request user @Suthasianhistorian8: to review that article too and nominate it for deletion. Also, all other articles created by user CanadianSingh1469 should be reviewed as they are all biased and based on original research. 1.23.251.175 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You are the second IP editor from the same city to suggest that this is a copy of Operation Mand, but it clearly isn't. Rather, this is a child article of that page. The content is different and Operation Mand states that Avtar Singh Brahma ... would defeat security forces in the Battle of Manakpur. There is a very good question as to whether this is a notable subject or not, independently notable for its own page, but this is clearly not just a content fork. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  IP, If this is a double-vote, please do strike your comment as such. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  IP is obviously the same as the one that voted previously. @Suthasianhistorian8 Can you strike this? I am not sure how to. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have undone your strike. Although I share your concern that we have two similar !votes from the same location, we should not be striking !votes unless they are shown to be sock puppets, for which a sock puppet investigation would be required (and these are not typically possible for IPs). It is possible that two IPs from that location would be commenting here, considering the subject (but odd that they both make the same incorrect point). However I have already marked the edit for the attention of the closer, see WP:SPA. This will bring the closer's attention to the concerns here. In any case, deletion discussions are not a vote, and a page may be kept even if deletes outnumber keeps. It will depend on the arguments made. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having wandered in here a couple of days ago, I have been wondering whether to comment on this AfD. As it is relisted, I would like to cast a !vote, but I have a few concerns. On the leaning delete side of things, I cannot find any references at all that make the case that that such a battle existed. The article appears to describe a skirmish, and in fairly uncritical terms. It is referenced to (Singh, 2002), that is Violence in Political Discourse but I have no access to this book, so I cannot see what the book says about the subject. A page number of 205 is given. If someone has access to that, could they quote the relevant text, so we can evaluate what it says about this incident? Yet while I am leaning delete on the lack of sourcing, I am also concerned by some of the delete arguments being made here. The nom. merely states there are source reliability and verification issues, but does not expand. What are the policy reasons for delete here? We also have two IPs (from the same city) suggesting this is a content fork, of another page, but it is not. The only policy reason I see for deletion is if there are no suitable sources for this. Those wishing to sway towards keep would do well to present any additional secondary sources here. They don't have to be in the article - they just have to be shown to exist. In the absence of any evidence of sources this would be a delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per Oaktree b. 🥇ÀvîRâm7^(talk)🩺 07:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per CanadianSingh1469 Elifanta23 (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)— Elifanta23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as a fringe theory and likely hoax. While I do not have access to most of the sources cited, I could not find any other sources while searching for the topic. As User:Oaktree b put forward, a "battle" held in 1986 [against the Republic of India] in which 2,000+ Central Reserve Police Force were killed would have drawn the attention of reliable sources – which, in my search as well, are non-existent. Also, the creator has a history of making hagiographies and fringe theories mainstream, see Talk:Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi#Sikh involvement and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actions by Major Singh Johal (also follow Abecedare's links) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NRDS Dhamdhama[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Sources are primary. No significant coverage. It includes very promotional content. SaurabhSaha 01:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Assam. SaurabhSaha 01:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing any supporting references. - Indefensible (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Indefensible. Okoslavia (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks supporting references.Divesome (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duliajan Girls' College[edit]

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

Only one secondary source provided, no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:SCH. SaurabhSaha 01:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Assam. SaurabhSaha 01:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacking in WP:SIGCOV. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 03:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not seeing any supporting references. - Indefensible (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Okoslavia (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Leeds Carson[edit]

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

Highly promotional. Does not meet: WP:COMPOSER or WP:MUSICBIO. Suspect to COI editing. Resume style article with primary sourced content. Maineartists (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one LA Times article discusses this person, rest are in non-RS. Otherwise, all I find are USC news articles, which are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music Maineartists. (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this promotional mess is sourced almost entirely to student newspapers and other unreliable sources. Even the LA Times article mentioned above does not contribute to notability, as its coverage of Carson amounts to a mere paragraph. Clear WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the LA Times coverage of Carson amounts to a mere sentence. The other half of the two-sentence paragraph is about a different musical piece by someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G5 Courcelles (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (713)[edit]

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

Yet another Turkic-related battle article created by a new user and which suffers from the same WP:RS and WP:VER issues. Lev Gumilevs book mentions nothing about this event on page 374 [40]. Article looks WP:OR to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As per the above rationale.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more tiresome made-up battlebollox. We already have detailed coverage of the verifiable events at Qutayba ibn Muslim and Muslim conquest of Transoxiana. This is a fanciful content fork. Mccapra (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. There is zero ability to verify the alleged sources on the page as they are poor citations. It is noted in the infobox that the result of the battle was Not clear (no sources available to verify). If there are no sources to determine important information of a battle then such a page isn't warranted. ElderZamzam (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomplete, unverifiable sources, no reason to keep. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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