< August 14	August 16 >

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 12:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anabasis (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might argue that it satisfies Criterion 2 of WP:NJournals, with its articles being vitally important to historians of the Hellenistic Far East, for example. Thus, I will venture a keep, although I will happily defer to more experienced editors if I am incorrect in my thought process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"its articles being vitally important to historians of the Hellenistic Far East" do you have a source for that? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the remarks section on the page: "The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices... the comprehensiveness of the coverage varies by field, geography, language, and thus the threshold for constitute "frequently cited" varies by field ... for journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." I cannot provide any sources, but I can provide you with very many authors in more recognised journals who have cited the works published in Anabasis.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a source for that, then WP:NJOURNALS#C2 is not met. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indexed nowhere selective, fails all 3 of WP:NJOURNALS, and fails WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ancient historical journals are not in my wheelhouse, but I agree it does not meet the criteria as listed above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2022 (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!} 23:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union at the 1981 Maccabiah Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete per nom, and WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTSTATS. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my previous comments. We need better-developed articles instead of these thinly sliced intersections of an edition per sport. The literature does not support that. gidonb (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for the same reasons we deleted lost of these other junk Maccabiah Games articles. We don't need articles for every event, when almost none of them received massive coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As stated above, we don’t need articles for every event unless they receive significant coverage. A redirect to the parent articles is about all that is needed, if that. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2022 (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. Wow, that was a lot to read for someone who isn't involved! It's time to close this as an AfD discussion, but let me be very clear that this discussion is not over. I recommend it continues on relevant article talk pages or project pages as the editors see fit.

The question I have to answer is purely about whether there is a consensus to delete the articles. The nominator has made this easy for me by effectively withdrawing the nomination during the discussion and instead arguing for a merge and redirect and/or various other remedies, none of which require the pages to be deleted as a prerequisite.

That leaves me with the technicality as to whether to close as "Keep" or "No consensus". As stated above, I don't believe the discussion around exactly what to do with these articles is fully over; there seems to be a rough consensus that outright deletion is not required, but other than that the options to fix, redirect, merge, etc. are still wide open and for that reason I am closing as "no consensus". Waggers TALK 13:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Slavs[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same issues.

This triple AfD is a follow-up to the previous AfDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Slavs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Orthodox Slavs (and Catholic Slavs), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Slavs, each of which resulted in deletion for a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with rampant generalisations to imply an inherent connection between people who just so happen to be speakers of Slavic languages or a branch of Slavic languages, and often some other arbitrary trait such as religion or geography. These three articles are slightly different from the previous ones (such as North Slavs, which was ultimately merged into North Slavic languages) in the sense that the West, East and South Slavic languages are all widely recognised branches of the Slavic language family according to the consensus amongst linguists. However, we still need to ask the question whether there is any added value in writing separate articles about West, East and South Slavs as ethnic groups – with all sorts of alleged cultural or even biological traits that go beyond the field of linguistics – or whether such information should be regarded as either unscholarly or irrelevant, as it tended to be in each of the AfD cases above. The South Slavs (or Yugoslavs) stand out a bit from the other two groups, because during the 20th century the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were political realities (although they importantly excluded Bulgaria), and in some sense South Slavs or Yugoslavs were more than just a linguistic grouping, e.g. there were "Yugoslav citizens" and you could register as an "ethnic Yugoslav". However, I think the article Yugoslavs can still serve that function to talk about the South Slavs in any other than a purely linguistic sense. (And even if we may argue that "Yugoslavs" were or are more than just a linguistic reality, Bulgarians are still usually excluded from this concept, while it is possible to include groups such as Albanian-speaking Kosovars, Hungarian-speaking Serbs or Slovenes or Italian-speaking Croats, who were at least "Yugoslav citizens" for decades).

In any case, it is still unacceptable to have articles with sections such as South Slavs#Cities, a fine example of WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, rampant generalisation and irrelevance in one. Why, for example, does it list Plovdiv with its 338,153 inhabitants (allegedly as of 1 October 2015) in an article about South Slavs? The reasoning seems to be: (A) Bulgarian is a South Slavic language, (B) Bulgarian is the majority-language (demographically) / national language (legally) of Bulgaria, (C) therefore we may regard the entire population of Bulgaria as "South Slavs", (D) therefore we can count every single inhabitant of Plovdiv as "South Slavs". Evidently, only A and B are correct, C is misleading/generalising/oversimplified, and D is factually incorrect. Presenting this information in this way is therefore unacceptable. (I already added those templates OR and unsourced templates there two months ago when the North Slavs AfD was in progress, but nobody has fixed it in the meantime. I'm now using it to illustrate the issues with all three of these West, East and South Slav articles). Another common feature in these articles is the mention of bits and pieces of history or culture of a specific country/state or ethnic/linguistic (sub)group, which aren't necessarily representative of the West, East or South linguistic branches. E.g. why does it state "For many centuries Poland has had close ties with its western neighbors, with the Polish ruler Bolesław I the Brave declared by Holy Roman Emperor Otto III as Frater et Cooperator Imperii ("Brother and Partner in the Empire")."? What does that have to do with "West Slavs", other than that in modern times (19th and early 20th century) the Polish language has been classified as a West Slavic language? (In the same way, Polish things were taken as representative of "North Slavic culture" generally in the former "North Slavs" article, and the AfD regarded this as OR/SYNTH). Or, why should we take the painting File:Slavic girl.jpg alias File:Ukrainian girl by Nikolay Rachkov (2nd half 19 c., Chernigov museum).jpg as representative of "East Slavs", just because Ukrainian was identified as an East Slavic language in modern times? If anything, it says something about Ukrainian culture specifically, not about some broader purported "East Slavic culture" generally, as it appears to have nothing to do with linguistics, but only with clothing. Employing linguistics to make such statements or present images in this manner is simply WP:SYNTH.

In short, when we remove all the OR, SYNTH, irrelevant and unsourced stuff,

all valuable material from South Slavs can be merged into South Slavic languages or Yugoslavs;
all valuable material from West Slavs can be merged into West Slavic languages; and
all valuable material from East Slavs can be merged into East Slavic languages.

None of these articles seems to have sufficient added value as separate articles on their own, just like all previous AfDs with a Slavic theme above have already demonstrated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some very valid points are raised above about synth and OR, but it remains the case that the three terms are widely used in scholarship, not just as linguistic divisions, but as ethnic divisions. The articles all have citations on various points not relating to language. From the first page of a google books search, I got the following non-lingustic works with the terms in their titles: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

There were many more which mentioned East, West, South Slavs in text. From the above, it is clear that the terms definitely get the most use in discussions of Slavic history in the early Medieval period, before the current national divisions had appeared, but not exclusively so - we see it being used for discssions of literature in Tempest and of modern diasporas in Cetinich. No sources have been provided by the nominator for the claim that these terms are not recognised as ethnic groups. And actually, if sources were to be provided that showed that these groupings are now deprecated (I'm not clear whether this is the case), there would still be reason to have these articles, as we have articles for (e.g.) Hamites. Additionally, I think there is a problem with merging South Slavs (ostensibly an ethnic group) into Yugoslavs (a former citizenship and nationality). Furius (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite willing to be corrected on things I may have gotten wrong, and educated on things I don't know yet. You seem to have provided quite some RS to support the idea of non-linguistic scholarly validity of these terms, so I'll check them out. On the other hand, "No sources have been provided by the nominator for the claim that these terms are not recognised as ethnic groups" is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on whoever would like to claim that these three linguistic groupings constitute ethnicities, not on me to show that they are not. As a matter of fact, I've just skimmed through each of the three articles for the word 'ethnic' or 'ethnicity', and each time it comes up, it is in a sentence without a source at the end. I'm not joking. There is 1 exception, namely Riasanovsky & Steinberg in East Slavs#Post-Kievan period speaking about "significant linguistic and ethnic differentiation among the Rus' people into Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians". I can't check that source without buying the book, but the fact that "linguistic and ethnic" are mentioned in the same breath seems to confirm that these always go hand in hand, and never separately. But perhaps the 8 sources you have provided above will contain enough evidence, we'll see. You've got a point that it could be kept as a separate article if it is a significantly developed but now deprecated concept like Hamites. Then again, in the case of North Slavs we found that it was not, and decided to merge it into North Slavic languages. So I'm open to many possibilities. And yes, "South Slavs" and "Yugoslavs" don't always mean the same. The question is rather whether South Slavs merits a separate article from South Slavic languages, or not. If not, it depends on which bits and pieces of South Slavs we're talking about whether to merge it into South Slavic languages or Yugoslavs (or both, or neither). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Živković et al. 2013 is quite interesting. There seems to be a widespread understanding that you can categorise a broad range of archaeological findings as "Slavic" or "South Slavic", suggesting that their material culture was distinguishable from surrounding tribes that spoke different languages. Similar attempts to connect e.g. the La Tène culture to the Celts have proven to not be as straightforward as early scholars thought. This would make it a scholarly valid concept that means more than just a linguistic subdivision. This could be a valuable source for articles like early Slavs. Nevertheless, whenever the book uses the word 'ethnic', in almost invariably refers to language.

Cetinich 2003 seems to use "South Slavs" mostly as an ad hoc grouping of immigrant groups based on their nationalities and the geographical proximity of their countries of origin. Cetinich emphasises the differences between these groups in terms of 'traditions': 'Through their long history as distinct peoples, the South Slavs have forged their own traditions, which in the 1991-1995 Yugoslav wars of secession proved stronger than their sense of a shared experience.' If anything, I think this book is taking the position that there is no such thing as a South Slavic ethnicity, but that there are 6 ones ("Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians", thus notably excluding Bulgarians but also Gorani etc.) that were only briefly united in Yugoslavia but remained distinct peoples (plural). In practice, 'South Slav' is synonymous with "Yugoslav" according to Cetinich. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These readings of the quotations seem like synthetic interpretations to me. Your conclusion doesn't obviously follow from the Cetinich quote. Being "distinct peoples" doesn't preclude having a shared ethnic identity. Croats, Serbs, etc all belong to a Slavic ethnicity despite being distinct peoples, after all. In fact, most ethnicities contain multiple distinct peoples. Having acknowledged that Živković et al. use South Slavic as an archaeological category, I think any case for deletion collapses - it is not for wikipedia to double guess that category, but for the scholarly literature to do so (which wiki could then cite).

When there are no sources for a concept then the burden is on retentionists to provide sources. When a concept is widely present in scholarly literature, then the presumption is that we will have an article, so I think the burden to show reliable sources saying that the concept doesn't exist shifts to the proposer of deletion. Both of these sources (and the others) are providing material that is connected to language, yes, but also material that is separate from it.

Here's an article on "East Slavic identity" as a political concept written 2004 ([1]). It shows that East Slavic identity is a complicated, contested thing, but it is a thing that really is discussed (and that chapter alone provides more than enough material for an article). Furius (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; could you summarise how you interpret Cetinich's view of what the South Slavs are, and how his book could serve to justify the standalone article South Slavs?

Whether people have a 'shared ethnic identity' or not is a rather subjective question. E.g. many Serbs or Croats etc. could adhere to civic nationalism, which proceeds from 'a political identity built around shared citizenship within the state' and 'has no ethnocentrism'. To them, neither language or religion is a primary factor in their idea of shared identity, and whether they 'all belong to a Slavic ethnicity' (across borders) is not as obvious as it might seem. Although I haven't read Cetinich's book in detail, I think his views are more representative of civic nationalism than ethnic nationalism.

My acknowledgement that the term 'South Slavic' seems to be used by Živković et al. 2013 as an archaeological category does not (yet) mean that therefore "South Slavs" merits its own article. As a matter of fact, this same source was dismissed as evidence that "North Slavs" merited their own article. User:Austronesier stated: "This volume only has one passing mention of the term "North Slavs" (yes, only one on p.330), but doesn't define it nor treat it as a topic, which is needed here to actually verify the definition." (See Talk:North Slavs#Sources for discussions). I haven't yet checked whether Živković et al. 2013 do define "South Slavs", "East Slavs" or "West Slavs", or treat it as a topic in order to verify the definition (I should have done that right away). As with "North Slavs", if it is mostly just an ad hoc grouping of archaeological findings associated with Slavic-speaking tribes based on geography, this doesn't really lend credibility to the idea that they are an ethnic group. To look at it in another way: why is the "South" part relevant, e.g. the meso level, rather than just the micro (tribal) level or the macro (Slavic language family) level? Why can't such information be mentioned in an article like early Slavs?

Furthermore, does it support the notion that "South Slavs" still exist today as an ethnic group in the 21st century? Note that such claims are not made about, say, "West Germanic peoples" or somesuch; West Germanic peoples is just a redirect to West Germanic languages. Nobody is seriously suggesting that "West German(ic)s" (Westgermanen) are (still) an "ethnicity" in the early 21st century that as such having anything more than a linguistic subdivision in common.

Your claim that "When a concept is widely present in scholarly literature, then the presumption is that we will have an article, so I think the burden to show reliable sources saying that the concept doesn't exist shifts to the proposer of deletion." is incorrect per the WP:ONUS policy. Quote: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In other words, the burden of proof (onus) is on you. The 2004 Wilson article might help you, so I think you could give it a try. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do Živković et al. 2013 define "South Slavs", "East Slavs" or "West Slavs", or treat it as a topic, in order to verify the definition? This test set by Austronesier in the North Slavs case should now be applied to the other three terms as well. As the document is 469 pages long, I'll try to search for these terms using ctrl+F to save time. This pdf may not recognise every instance of this combination of letters. I'll try to find as many as I can.

"West Slavs": I'm getting just 5 hits by ctrl+F-ing "West Slav". All of them are found in the first few pages of "The Typology of Slavic Settlements in Central Europe in the Middle Ages. According to Latin Sources (8th – 12th Centuries)" by author Bojana Radovanović. The phrases "West Slavs" and "West Slavic" disappear as the chapter progresses. Note that in the Preface on pages 11 and 12 no mention of "West Slavs/Slavic" is made; the stated aim of the chapter is "to highlight the typology and terminology used to determine Slavic settlements in Central and Western Europe in the Early Middle Ages (9th– 12th centuries)." It is purely "Slavic" + a selected region.
- p. 346: "The aim of this chapter is to delineate the typological patterns of West Slavic settlements in medieval central Europe (8th – 12th centuries)." Sounds promising, but not a definition yet. As the chapter proceeds, we'll see that the term 'Slavic' is used mostly by Radovanović. 'West Slavic' in this case seems to refer to anything Slavic on the present territories of "present-day Poland, Czech Republic and Germany" (p. 346) or "the vast territory stretching from the present-day Czech Republic to the Baltic coast" (p. 347), not to a Slavic grouping distinct from other Slavic group by anything other than geography. (Slovakia is not explicitly mentioned by Radovanović, which one might expect as it is a present-day country with a West Slavic language speaking majority).
- p. 348: "Various reasons have led to this diversity of the information relevant to a typology of West-Slavic settlements in medieval central Europe." No definition.
- p. 349: "The earliest account on the West Slavs contained in Frankish chronicles comes from the chronicle of Fredegar, in the passage describing the conflicts between the Franks and the Slavs in the first half of the 7th century.[1300: Fred. Chron., 144, 154, 155; Gesta Dag., 410.]" No definition. I don't know where to find any easily accessible copy of the Chronicle of Fredegar, but the 1997 Curta paper is probably the online source that currently quotes it most extensively in the original Latin. It doesn't seem like Fredegar makes West, East or South subdivisions amongst the "Slavs", a term he uses very ambiguously and unclearly. In any case, this sentence from Radovanović doesn't help us.
- p. 349–350: "In ARF (ca. 770 – 840), the West Slavs were said to have been present at the Council of Frankfurt in 822, whereupon the representatives of orientalium Sclavorum, id est Abodritorum, Soraborum, Wiltzorum, Beheimorum, Marvanorum, Praedenecentorum[1301] were enumerated among the participants as well." What does the ARF say exactly?

Ipse vero peracta autumnali venatione trans Rhenum ad hiemandum in loco, qui Franconofurd appellatur, profectus est. Ibique generali conventu congregato necessaria quaeque ad utilitatem orientalium partium regni sui pertinentia more solemni cum optimatibus, quos ad hoc evocare iusserat, tractare curavit. In quo conventu omnium orientalium Sclavorum, id est Abodritorum, Soraborum, Wilzorum, Beheimorum, Marvanorum, Praedenecentorum, et in Pannonia residentium Abarum legationes cum muneribus ad se directas audivit.
But he [Louis the Pious], having finished his autumn hunting, went across the Rhine to spend the winter in a place called Franconofurd [Frankfurt]. There, having assembled a general assembly, he took care to deal with the nobles, whom he had ordered to be summoned for this purpose, in a solemn manner, with the necessary matters pertaining to the welfare of the eastern parts of his kingdom. In which assembly of all the Slavs from the east, that is, the Abodrites [Obotrites?], the Sorabs [Sorbs?], the Wilzos [Veleti/Wends?], the Beheims [Bohemians?], the Marvans [Moravians?], the Praedenecenti, and the Abari [Avars?] residing in Pannonia, he heard embassies addressed to him with presents.

The word orientalium literally means "of the east". It refers to 'orientalium partium regni sui' 'the eastern part of his kingdom' mentioned in the previous sentence, so ARF talks about the Slavs in the east of Louis the Pious' kingdom, not the 'East Slavs' as we understand them in modern linguistics. In other words, orientalium refes to the political geography of the Frankish Empire and is not an ethnolinguistic designation. So it is curious why Radovanović would explain this as a reference to 'West Slavs', especially because the text literally says "of the east"; at least 'East Slavs' would have been more likely than 'West Slavs' because this opposite cardination direction is actually mentioned in the source. I think she has either misread this passage (unlikely, she knows Latin), or already associated these tribes with the modern West Slavic languages for other reasons (more likely), or simply labels any Slavic tribe in the studied region "West Slavic" (most likely). The passage itself certainly cannot identify these tribes as 'West Slavs'.

p. 350: "As it has already been mentioned, the Frankish authors have yield ed numerous information on the Polabian Slavs and the West-Slavic tribes dwelling in the valley of the Laba river, in the region delimited by the Baltic Sea in the north; Saxony in the south, Frankish Empire in the west and Poland in the east." No definition. It confirms my suspicion that Radovanović labels any Slavic tribe in the studied areas as "West Slavic" by pure geography, regardless whether or not the sources mention a cardinal direction.

That's it for "West Slavs" and "West Slavic" in Živković et al. 2013. It fails Austronesier's definition test. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"East Slavs": I'm getting 10 hits by ctrl+F-ing "East Slav". All are found in chapter 5: "The Typology of Early Medieval Settlements in 5 Bohemia, Poland and Russia" by Irena Cvijanović.
- p. 11 (Preface): "Based on research of a great number of towns and villages in ancient Russia, five cultures can be determined: East Slavic culture, Prague Korchak, Penkovka, Ipotesti-Candesti and Volincevo culture." These are based on "comparison between written sources and archaeological finds". We'll see what "East Slavic culture" means.
- p. 290 repeats the same sentence.
- p. 321: "The seat of the Early Medieval state of East Slavs was moved from the middle Dnieper to the region between Volga and Oka, suitable for developing agriculture.[1220] The region around Moscow and in Volga-Oka region is less attractive, but still similar to the region around Kiev on the middle Dnieper. The centre of power shifted to the principality of Moscow that imposed its might in the end.[1221]" What author Irena Cvijanović does here is loosely, colloquially referring to the Kyivan Rus' and Muscovy. Obviously the inhabitants of both states weren't just "East Slavs", or encompassed all areas inhabited by "East Slavs". Either way, she doesn't define what she means.
- p. 327: "Modern Belarus, area in which East Slavic languages are spoken today, was populated with East Balts (ancestors of Lithuanians) up to the tenth century and the Baltic ethnicities did survive even after the Slavic expansion." No definition.
- p. 336-337: "Archaeological research and written sources confirm great changes in the first millennium when it comes to the development of houses among the East Slavic communities that formed the economic basis of the Kiev state. Animal husbandry was the main occupation of the East Slavic population between the Dnieper and Carpathians between the eighth and tenth century, like in the period before." (...) "The East Slavic tribal communities were divided into tribes led by princes (knez), ruled by the grand prince." No definition.
- p. 339: "The sites of Penkovka culture probably constitute the core of the East Slavs, maybe Antes." No definition. Strangely, the Penkovka culture is postulated as "the core of the East Slavs", but the "East Slavic culture" is something else.
- p. 343: "Five cultures are distinguished in Russia: East Slavic culture, Prague Korchak, Penkovka, Ipotesti-Candesti and Volincevo. Cultures in the forest steppe zones of Ukraine were the Prague-type, Penkovka, Zhitomir and Raikovets. The East Slavic culture was under the influence of Saltovo culture of Khazars, Bulgars and Alans." These are the last two mentions of "East Slav" in Živković et al. 2013 that I could find with ctrl+F. At no point was "East Slavic culture" defined, but this final sentence says it was influenced by the Saltov Culture. I've looked up two maps here on the right, and I think what Cvijanović means by "East Slavic culture" is actuallya synonym for Kolochin culture? There's barely anything to be found about "East Slavic culture" in the context of archaeology on the Internet, except for a passing mention in Todor Chobanov (2021): "....archaeological realities of the east Slavic culture (Penkovsk-Pastirsk),..". This indicates that "East Slavic culture" and "Penkovka culture" are synonyms; Cvijanović did mention on p. 339 that the latter was supposedly "the core of the East Slavs". So what does all of this tell us? Very little, to be honest. At most it says something about a probable geographic-archeological predecessor of the Kyivan Rus'. This is interesting, but has nothing to do with East Slavs in the 21st century as a supposed ethnolinguistic group. Most importantly, it fails Austronesier's definition test. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "East Slavic culture" might be a common term in Russian academia, perhaps as a synonym of any of the archaeological cultures mentioned above, but ru:Категория:Археологические культуры России on Russian Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and when I try to search for it, I can't find it. "East Slavic culture" has no entry or redirect on Russian Wikipedia, and is never mentioned in the context of archaeological cultures as far as I can tell. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding with "South Slavs" and "South Slavic". I'm getting 34 hits by ctrl+F-ing "South Slav", that's a lot more than the other two. Let's see how the terms are used.
p. 2, 4, 6. Title and contents, not useful.
p. 9: 'The neat fabric of antique organization of space marked the concepts of confrontation or coexistence of various spatial layers in the territories occupied by South Slaves [sic].' No definition, not useful.
p. 10: 'The first chapter titled The Urban Landscape of Early Medieval Slavic Principalities in the Territories of the Former Praefectura Illyricum and in the Province of Dalmatia (ca. 610 - 950) represents a research of the urban development in the South-Slavic principalities.' No definition yet; 'South-Slavic' seems to be used as a shorthand for socio-economic processes in 'Slavic' political entities, the study of which is geographically limited by the territories of two former Roman provinces.

'Relying on these data, the deep-rooted opinion in the historiography that the Southern Slavs did not develop any urban centres in the early stages of their history is challenged and the new approach in research is based on a new question: What is considered to be an urban centre?' No definition. It seems to be an ad hoc geographic grouping of various principalities during a certain time. 'Southern Slavs' seems different from 'South Slavs' perhaps.

p. 16: 'In his famous work De administrando imperio (DAI), Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos dedicated eight chapters to the South Slavs (chapters valuable work XXIX-XXXVI).' This is followed by the same list of principalities of p. 10, and then 'Research of the urban development in the South-Slavic principalities has relied on two types of sources: archaeological evidence and written documents of different types.' That is common in anthropological / proto-historical studies of all early societies in Europe; this says nothing.

footnote 7 describes a disagreement between Ćirković 1998 and Živković 2008 (the author himself) whether kastra oikoumena were 'administrative centres of the earliest territorial organization among the South Slavs' or 'the earliest ecclesiastial organization of the Roman Church.' So that question remains unresolved; the author rejects it.

p. 17: 'There is a deep-rooted opinion in the historiography that the Southern Slavs did not develop any urban centres in the early stages of their history.' Repeats p. 10.
p. 25 is a linguistic footnote.
p. 26: 'The župans as elders or the ruling class governing the South Slavs are mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitos.' No definition, probably another ad hoc grouping of the 'Slavic' principalities in the Balkans.
p. 29 footnote 68: 'According to the typology of the earliest churches in the Early Medieval principalities of the South Slavs, there were two main centres: Spalato and Ragusa, from where architectural features spread out into the Slavic hinterland.' Idem.
p. 31: 'Altogether, around the year 850, there were 40 cities in the principalities of the South Slavs. Of these 40 cities, names of 16 are of a Latin or Greek origin, and 24 of Slavic. Therefore, at least 40% of the cities in the South-Slavic principalities were re-built on the sites where the ancient cities once stood, and they retained their former Latin or Greek names in slavicized forms.[76]' The footnote says: 'For the overall linguistic situation in the Balkans, especially regarding the slavicization of the names of the Roman settlements, see: H. Mihăescu [1983]'. Another ad hoc geographic grouping of all things Slav in the Balkans as 'South Slavic', without defining this term in any other way than geography (as opposed to other things Slav not in the Balkans).
p. 34: 'The urban situation in the principalities of the South Slavs (ca. 850 –950) seems even more complex than has ever been thought.' No definition.
p. 37 uses the terms 'Principalities of South Slavs', 'South Slavic principalities' and 'South Slavic states', in which 'South' seems to relate purely to geography and nothing specifically ethnic or cultural or even linguistic, as 'the first Slavic states in the region' is used as a synonym of the aforementioned three terms.
p. 63: 'Nevertheless, the importance Nin had for the South Slavic principalities on the eastern Adriatic, never decreased.' No definition.
p. 65: 'The diocese of Biograd was one of the episcopal sees of the early medieval northern Dalmatia, situated in the realm of the first South Slavic prinicipalities.' No definition. It's worth repeating Austronesier's test at this point: The text needs to define "South Slavs" or treat it as a topic. That's not what we're getting: the subject of this text are principalities that are labelled 'South Slavic' because their dominant populations were Slavic, and they were located in the Balkans. What distinguishes "South Slavs" from other Slavs apart from geography is not clarified. There doesn't even seem to be an assumption that they are different, as simply "Slavic" is also repeatedly used to refer to the same principalities.
p. 69: 'The early medieval cathedral church of the diocese of Knin stands as an important and curious case among many cathedral churches constituted in the first Early Medieval South Slavic principalities of the eastern Adriatic region and its hinterland.' No definition.
p. 102: 'The Early Medieval episcopal sees and their cathedral churches on the eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland at the time of the first South Slavic principalities presented here, portray a more certain picture of spiritual life and the development of ecclesiastical organization in this region throughout the given period.' No definition.
p. 103: '..the foundations of the first political entities that were forming on the territories inhabited by the South Slavs;..' No definition.
The remaining references are all similarly useless.

My initial, poorly-informed assessment that 'There seems to be a widespread understanding that you can categorise a broad range of archaeological findings as "Slavic" or "South Slavic"' was wrong. Upon closer inspection, that is not the case at all. 'West', 'East' and 'South' appear to be almost always purely geographial classifications of archaeological findings or literary associations. The closest we really get to defined some sort of ethnolinguistic Slavic group is Cvijanović's assertion that there has been some sort of "East Slavic (archaeological) culture" that is either synonymous with the Penvokva culture, the Kolochin culture or another one, or is one that she has just postulated by herself. The fact that these geographical classifications of archaeology and written sources coincide with modern linguistic subdivisions is almost an accident. No effort is taken to define these three groups, nor to distinguish them from each other apart from geography. Therefore, I think the title of this whole book is a misnomer, and cannot serve in any way to support the assertion that these three groups exist as ethnic, ethnolinguistic, cultural-historical etc. groups. It was interesting, but did not yield what Furius was looking for. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so the source gives you a list of South Slavic principalities on p. 10 and you conclude that you've not been given a definition? This whole "test set by Austronesier," which I've never encountered before and is not a policy, seems to be just a way to reject large swathes of secondary source material as somehow not good enough. But the vast lists that you've generated here only convince me that there is plenty of secondary source material on all three of these groupings, which has nothing to do with language. Furius (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the text does not give a definition of what/who "South Slavs" are, other than those Slavs living in the Balkans. When you read the texts closely, as I have done above, linguistic or 'ethnic' subdivisions of the Slavs don't matter in these texts on the West/East/South Slavic level. 'West/East/South' denote geographic regions, not ethnic divisions. They do not follow the linguistic subdivision-based definitions in the opening sentences of the West/East/South Slavs articles. E.g. if some person born on the Baltic coast and raised to speak Polish somehow got lost, or deliberately moved, and settled in the Balkans, these authors would count that person as a "South Slav", because they are a Slav in the South. Similarly, present-day Slovak speakers in the Serbian Vojvodina or Croatian Syrmia would be classified as "South Slav" as well, due to sheer geography.

What I call 'Austronesier's test' is simply the application of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Good definitions and Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (...) A good definition is not circular, a synonym or a near synonym, overly broad or narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure.' + 'All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.' By this very AfD, I am challenging the definitions given in the lead sections of each of these articles, namely that I don't think they merit separate articles from the articles about the West/East/South Slavic languages, unless someone can make clear that "West/East/South Slavs" are more than just linguistic subdivisions. To overcome this challenge, 'a reliable source that directly supports the material' is needed. In this case, that means a reliable source that gives a proper definition of what/who "West/East/South Slavs" even are. If all the sources say is "South Slavs are speakers of South Slavic languages", then there's no reason for a separate article on "South Slavs" apart from South Slavic languages. All three articles start similarly:

"The West Slavs are Slavic peoples who speak the West Slavic languages."
"South Slavs are Slavic peoples who speak South Slavic languages..."
"The East Slavs are the most populous subgroup of the Slavs. They speak the East Slavic languages..."

Apart from the fact that this may actually be in violation of non-circular definition per WP:NOT (because it really doesn't say much that the reader didn't already know), neither these definitions nor the rest of the articles really seems to establish what these groups have in common other than belonging to the same linguistic subdivision, nor do these three articles differentiate these three groups from each other by other means than linguistics (unless when generalisations/OR/SYNTH are invoked). As I said above, simply invoking geography by citing Živković et al. 2013 to stress the differences between West, East and South doesn't work, because then the Syrmian and Vojvodinan Slovaks are incorrectly classified as "South Slavs". (You can probably think of other reasons why this won't work, such as having to disregard millions of Slavic speakers living in diasporas around the world, and thus not "inhabit[ing] a contiguous region of Southeast Europe comprising the eastern Alps and the Balkan Peninsula", another one of these geographic generalisations that just doesn't hold up).

So in summary, I think that there are very few, if any, arguments left for not merging these articles into the three languages articles. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part about a people from the Baltic or Slovaks being called South Slavs is incorrect, that just doesn't happen in reality. You need to actually source these kinds of eyebrow-raising claims that are completely inconsistent with general scholarship on the topic. This is a waste of everyone's time. I'm going to stop replying here because it's apparently unproductive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've just proven the point I've been making to Furius. Furius wanted to use Živković et al. 2013 as a source to establish what West/East/South Slavs are. I've given two reasons why that is impossible.

Živković et al. 2013 fails Wikipedia:Verifiability because it does not 'directly support the material', because it does not provide a definition of what West/East/South Slavs are.
(This part is a thought experiment) If we were to apply the descriptions that Živković et al. 2013 use for West/East/South Slavs, then we would end up with purely geography-based classifications by which, for example, Syrmian and Vojvodinan Slovaks would be labelled "South Slavs" because they live in the Balkans. That is incorrect, of course; Slovaks speak a West Slavic language, no matter where they live. I agree with you that these would be 'eyebrow-raising claims that are completely inconsistent with general scholarship on the topic'. Yet this is what would happen if we were to use Živković et al. 2013 as a source for what West/East/South Slavs are, as Furius proposed.

I think Furius may not have read the book very carefully in the way that I have attempted to do here in public above (so that you can read along) by analysing every single quote featuring the words "West/East/South Slavs/Slavic" in that book, or may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies on these issues. Either way, unfortunately it's just not a very good source for establishing what West/East/South Slavs are, other than linguistic subdivisions.

You're free to disengage from this AfD whenever you want, of course; I hope you have a nice day. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive you can't get rid of the South Slavs at least (Oppose), because that concept as such does indeed exist in scholarship and in the vernacular of the said peoples. It also exists separately from Yugoslavs, and conflating these two is a curious lapse in due diligence. Feel free to clean up the article from any weird synthesis, but the concept itself is fairly mundane and this rationale doesn't work for it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "South Slavs" and "Yugoslavs" don't always mean the same. The question is rather whether South Slavs merits a separate article from South Slavic languages, or not. If not, it depends on which bits and pieces of South Slavs we're talking about whether to merge it into South Slavic languages or Yugoslavs (or both, or neither). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous precedents of way less generally notable concepts having standalone articles, so I wouldn't be anxious to do such a merge. To double-check, I did a search of just the Croatian scientific bibliography and got 24 title/keyword matches for the South Slavic languages and 22 title/keyword matches for the South Slavs, and the overview indicates that the latter is not about linguistics, so the WP:POTENTIAL seems to be there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That there are allegedly worse articles is not a valid defence per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (In fact, one could argue the opposite. When North Slavs was nominated for deletion, its author argued both ways that, because the articles West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs existed, the article North Slavs also had a 'right' to exist, and that if the latter were deleted (which it was; we merged it into North Slavic languages), all four should be deleted). We shouldn't be using this type of argument. As I stated in the nomination, there may be reasons why "West Slavs", "East Slavs" and especially "South Slavs" (because of Yugoslavia) have greater notability and scholarly validity than "North Slavs". Still, these three articles suffer from a lot of the same issues that the other Slavic-themed articles faced and were ultimately deleted/merged for. Therefore, I decided it would be a good idea to have this discussion and see what people would think about it. Both you and Furious have already acknowledged at least some of these issues.

The WP:POTENTIAL essay has a good point in this case, but I would contrast that with WP:OVERLAP and the WP:REDUNDANTFORK policy (which could support merging if there is not enough to say about these three groups beyond linguistics), and the WP:ONUS policy (e.g. it must be demonstrated - by you or someone else - that information from these 22 search results on South Slavs has added value for South Slavs as an ethnic concept separate from South Slavic languages and Yugoslavs).

Ultimately, my goal is to make Wikipedia better. These articles do not necessarily have to be deleted/merged in my opinion, although I think that is a better option than keeping them as they are. If we agree that they can be kept as standalone articles, but need to be seriously cleaned up and rewritten, then that would also be a good solution. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I'm not using that type of an argument :) AFD should be applicable to South Slavs in case we need to WP:TNT it, otherwise it's just a matter of cleanup. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've done a lot of cleaning up today, and I have to admit that South Slavs is the best-written article of the three by far. However, that is entirely due to 3 sections:

South Slavs#Early South Slavs, overlaps with Early Slavs
South Slavs#Middle Ages, overlaps with Slavic migrations to the Balkans
South Slavs#Genetics, strongly overlaps with Slavic_migrations_to_the_Balkans#Genetics (and Slavs#Genetics). This section is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

In other words, this information doesn't need a "South Slavs" article, it is already present in or could be moved/merged to other existing articles.

The other sections are all poorly written.

South Slavs#Geographic distribution should be merged into Slavs#Population
South Slavs#Languages should be merged into South Slavic languages
South Slavs#Terminology could be moved to Yugoslavs and/or South Slavic languages
South Slavs#Early modern period can be deleted entirely as unsourced

There's no reason for a standalone South Slavs article in my opinion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The West Slavs article is the worst.

I've done my best to rewrite the History section, but it's a minefield. Curta has a lot of interesting things to say, but mostly doesn't talk about Slavic groups as "West Slavs"; she's concerned with whether tribes can be considered Slavic in general or not, and doesn't really go into subdivisions. She challenges the idea that Samo's kingdom was a Slavic state. The Great Russian Encyclopedia entry also doesn't actually claim that "Wends" or Venedi applied to West Slavs, it merely says it could have been. At any rate, this whole section can best be merged with early Slavs per WP:OVERLAP, because it's about all Slavs and in late antiquity / early middle ages.
West Slavs#Linguistic grouping should be merged with West Slavic languages#Classification per WP:OVERLAP
The rest of West Slavs#Groupings should probably be merged with List of ancient Slavic peoples. They already strongly WP:OVERLAP, but there are mixups with alleged modern ethnic West Slav groups.
West Slavs#Population should merge with Slavs#Population per WP:OVERLAP

There's no reason for a standalone West Slavs article in my opinion. Each section already has a better place in other articles. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I still disagree, this is too convoluted for its own good, you're citing vaguely applicable policies to construct an argument, but I'm not convinced that this is more coherent than simply having an article about the South Slavs, which has been the organic consensus for decades now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article has existed for a WP:LONGTIME doesn't mean it should be kept indefinitely. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point of mentioning age is not the age itself but the organic consensus, which I thought would be clear from the explicit mention of it, but apparently not :D --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'organic consensus' then? I'm looking through the archives and it looks like you're the only user who ever uses that phrase in years lol. The point is irrelevant though because consensus can change (WP:CCC). Some articles are nominated for deletion but kept, but upon a second AfD deleted anyway. A previous consensus can always get overturned no matter whether it is "organic" or has been "for decades". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to important feedback by Joy with whom I agree I think there are additional arguments for standalone South Slavs article (even if TNT may be needed). I would like to add that article Yugoslavs would not be the most appropriate article to transfer all the relevant material from South Slavs article. In fact, there are scholarly sources and debates criticizing exactly that practice of Yugocentrism in which Bulgaria is more often than not ignored in the field of South Slavic and Albania & Romania in Balkan studies. Also, at least South and East Slavs categories were historically widely (ab)used and in South Slavic case today there is clear distinction (despite original synonymous meaning and wide overlap) in describing something as South Slavic or Yugoslav. We should also keep in mind that we have three distinct topics in this category and that certain conclusion in one case can't directly preclude outcome in another case (for example, conclusion on quite obscure North Slavs concept and widely known South Slavs concept). The argument about implied existence or non existence is clear, but it can be applied to any imagined community- we should therefore just see if there is imagination of South Slavs (in academia or popular culture) or we are fabricating it here without reference.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MirkoS18, I agree with what you say, but I think all these points have already been made. We already agreed that "South Slavs" and "Yugoslavs" don't always mean the same (in fact, I stated that in my nomination, and that particularly Bulgarians are often included in the former, but excluded from the latter). I'm not advocating for deleting Yugoslavs, that article should stay. I've also said that, in case of a merger, we should transfer materials from South Slavs to either South Slavic languages, or to Yugoslavs, or both, on a case-by-case basis. And I've stated from the beginning that we should critically examine all such imagined communities concepts like North Slavs, but the decision on North Slavs or the other Slavic-themed AfDs will not logically lead to the same decision in these three cases per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. These earlier AfDs are just a good reason to also critically examine these three concepts, and whether they do pass the same test, or also fail it. I'm open to many possibilities, but at the moment I think merging is the best solution. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the conflation of all three in the same AfD is definitely not helping here. I can't imagine any AfD closer will be happy to go through all these walls of text about multiple variously intertwined topics. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I only nominated "West Slavs" and waited until that process was done to nominate "East Slavs" etc., wouldn't that be unfair? They're all kind of in the same league. When I first nominated "Eastern Orthodox Slavs", someone immediately pointed out that I should also nominate "Catholic Slavs" then, so I did. Even then, I still argued that I thought "Muslim Slavs" was a separate case that might be tenable, but someone else nominated that too and it got deleted as well anyway. Those were relatively simple AfDs, but the community shared my point of view. Then I stumbled upon "North Slavs", and that got much more complicated, with the author also saying we should also AfD "West/East/South Slavs" then. I foresaw that that would make it all way too big, because the latter are widely accepted linguistic subdivisions whereas "North Slavs" is not, so we decided to do that AfD separately first and see what the result would be. Now that that is over and done with, I have simply taken the next step, and it made sense to nominate all three in one go, just like "Eastern Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim Slavs". I knew that a lot of people might disagree with it (at least initially) because they are widely accepted linguistic subdivisions; but I think I had to explain that that doesn't mean we need to have separate articles about them that also treat them as ethnic groups, which is a far more contentious claim that does not appear to be widely accepted by scholars. If that requires a lot of text to explain, then so be it; I think it's important that Wikipedia consistently follows its policies and guidelines to make sure we are not misleading our readers. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the South Slavs article didn't say anything to the tune of "they're a single ethnic group". You make it seem like it's promulgating some sort of an egregious fallacy and has to be eliminated as a whole, but that's not necessarily the case. It's like a content dispute insta-escalated to AfD, which is excessive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above, 'These articles do not necessarily have to be deleted/merged in my opinion, although I think that is a better option than keeping them as they are.' From the very beginning, I've been open to scenarios in which these articles might be kept. However, the South Slavs article did imply, and still does, that "South Slavs" either are an ethnic group, or a group of ethnic subgroups. It already starts by having the Template:Infobox ethnic group on the top left (already a faux pas if it's not an ethnic group), which has the parameter "Related ethnic groups". The "People and countries" section had the sentence "Among South Slavic ethnic groups that are also nations are the Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrins." The Religion section had the passage: "Today, the majority of South Slavs are Orthodox Christians; this includes most Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs and Montenegrins. Most Slovenes and Croats (including Bunjevci and Šokci) are Roman Catholics. Bosniaks and some other ethnic groups (Gorani, Ethnic Muslims) and sub-groups (Torbeši and Pomaks) are Muslims. Some South Slavs are atheist, agnostic and/or non-religious." At the bottom, the Template:Slavic ethnic groups is included, in which "South Slavs" is one of the three main categories of "Slavic ethnic groups". Finally, the article is in three categories: "Category:South Slavs, Category:Ethnic groups in the Balkans, and Category:Slavic ethnic groups". Incidentally, the first category is a subcategory of the second and third category. The article text doesn't have to explicitly say anything "South Slavs are a single ethnic group" in order to describe, imply, categorise and frame it as such, which it does everywhere. If you agree that they are not a single ethnic group and shouldn't be treated as such, I would presume you would at least agree that the article needs to be thoroughly rewritten to avoid giving that impression, would you not? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really insightful and important points about synthesis here. Thank you. I’m most familiar with East Slavs. I doubt that deletion is warranted, but important to recognize what the subjects are and are not. East Slavs are not an ethnic group. They are a grouping of several nations and their ancestral peoples, and I think the current intro to the article is problematic in treating them as an identity that existed as Rus people and continues to exist. In fact, they were a geographical grouping of separate tribes, modern nationality didn’t exist until the beginning of the nineteenth century, and has been fraught with colonial relationships to this day. The language needs to be rewritten with some discipline and reference to good sources. Perhaps a useful rule of thumb, especially for any post-Medieval context, is to replace the vague noun “East Slavs” and use the adjective with well defined nouns: East Slavic or Eastern Slavic tribes, people, polities, nations, lands, or East Slavic-language speakers. —Michael Z. 23:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what you say. I don't think "East Slavs" exist as an ethnic group today, just as a linguistic subdivision.
- An argument can be made that "East Slavs" is a legitimate synomym for the Rus' people, which no longer exists. In fact, the History section (which is almost completely unsourced) claims that "Rus' people" is its 'Main article' (along with Ruthenians). At the same time, it refers to early Slavs, Saqaliba, Rus' Khaganate, and Kyivan Rus', each of which is better written. The question then is what added value the East Slavs#History section has for Wikipedia, if there are several other articles that explain the same information much better?
- East Slavs#Modern East Slavs is unsourced, and I think we can best merge it with Slavs#Population per WP:OVERLAP.
- East Slavs#Genetics strongly overlaps with Slavs#Genetics and Slavic migrations to the Balkans#Genetics. This section is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
There's no reason for a standalone West Slavs article in my opinion. Each section already has a better place in other articles. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points about the East Slavs article. Are you still advocating deletion? If so, where does the name redirect.

Perhaps it becomes a WP:SETINDEX, with a brief overview of each historical and modern Eastern Slavic group with main-article links. —Michael Z. 15:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing for merger (so perhaps I shouldn't have made this an AfD because I'm technically not arguing for 'deletion'?), namely merging the text of particular sections of these three articles with other existing articles, as I've proposed in my most recent comments. My proposal is that the pages themselves become redirects to West Slavic languages, East Slavic languages, and South Slavic languages respectively. But I'm open to other options. I'm not sure if a set index articles is a good solution here, but maybe a disambiguation page is better than just a redirect to the languages articles? E.g.:

"East Slavs" may refer to:

# East Slavic languages speakers

# Old East Slavic speakers

# Rus' people

== See also ==

# Kievan Rus'

# Rus' Khaganate

# Ruthenians

# Saqaliba

How about that? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of direct links to East/West/South Slavs as in modern people, and readers will want to read about them as a whole, but will find themselves reading about their languages or ancestors, then somehow find other information about them hidden in sections of various articles. The fact you can basically take articles apart and merge everything to various sections of other articles doesn't mean the article is worthless, it's a compilation of all this information in one place. -Vipz (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are making two assumptions: (A) East/West/South Slavs exist as "modern people" (rather than just as linguistic groups), and (B) readers want to read about East/West/South Slavs as "modern people", therefore an article about them should exist. I don't think we can make either assumption. As a matter of fact, the modern encyclopaedia Winkler Prins (2002) states: "Today the Slavic peoples are only connected by language affinity, see Slavic languages." They also think that the designation "Slavic" is only linguistic in the modern world, and otherwise only refers to history. That refutes A. Moreover, the fact that some readers may want to read about East/West/South Slavs as "modern people" may be nothing more than wishful thinking. We cannot wish facts into existence; it must be based on WP:RS and not WP:OR. The other Slavic-themed AfDs demonstrate that Wikipedia does not have to accept the existence of certain articles just because there are people that may want to read them. We've got policies, guidelines and conventions to adhere to. That refutes assumption B. Finally, I can also turn your last argument around: the fact that you can basically compile information from lots of places into one standalone article doesn't mean that article has added value. WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:OVERLAP indicate that we should avoid such things. WP:SECMOVE states: "You should migrate content when it would be better suited on a different article in Wikipedia. If it's already on that article, you should delete the duplicate information or start a discussion. If the two pages are similar you should consider Merging the two articles." Each of these things is applicable here, and that's exactly what I am proposing here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is about all the direct links to "South Slavs", "East Slavs" and "West Slavs" on present articles. East, West and South Slavs are linguistic groupings of modern people, and nothing more, as you state. "South Slavs" is simply a shorter way of writing "South Slavic speakers", etc. for other groupings. Thousands of articles will point to the new disambiguation pages after the move and will need to be relinked individually. If they stay like that for long, some readers will expect to read about something and not land on the right page. -Vipz (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would the new disambiguation pages link to all specific sections the old articles' content was merged to? I'm not sure whether section-linking in disambiguation pages is a practice on Wikipedia. Readers may want to know about, say, geographical distribution or genetics of South Slavs specifically when they land on the South Slavs disambig. -Vipz (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points. Section linking does not happen very often in disamb pages, but I sometimes do it, especially in the See also section. I considered Michael Z.'s points and suggested disamb pages as an alternative for set index articles, but I think that for the navigational and maintenance issues you've pointed out, this is not a very good option. My preference is therefore still for making these three pages redirects. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of those links are WP:NOTBROKEN and should not be 'fixed'. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have thoroughly checked, verified, rewritten and updated Slavs#Population. Any demographic stats regarding "West Slavs", "East Slavs" or "South Slavs" can better be put there to prevent WP:OVERLAP. I've therefore redirected West Slavs#Population and South Slavs#Population to Slavs#Population. By the way, it is notable that in all census data and estimates I went through in the past 4 days (16–19 August), I have not once seen any inhabitants of any of the countries self-identify as a "West Slav", an "East Slav" or a "South Slav". Some do identify as "Slav", "Slavic", "Yugoslav", even "Czechoslovak" or "Serbo-Croat", but nobody uses the cardinal directions for ethnic self-identification. (Sidenote: after 3 decades of naming disputes, the 2018 Prespa agreement specified that "North Macedonia" must be the official name of the FYROM, but the inhabitants were still allowed to call themselves just "Macedonians", without the "North" bit. They didn't want to, and Greece eventually respected their wish.) I think this is further evidence that these linguistic subdivisions aren't really considered ethnicities in practice. People usually self-identify with the national, regional, or (rarely) the language-family level (there are even Canadian and American diaspora communities who still self-identify as Czechoslovaks, after a country that doesn't exist anymore, similar to Yugoslavs). But not with the linguistic subdivision level. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is too simplistic of an argument, census self-identification is orthogonal to having an article about these concepts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a very strong argument, I'll grant you that, but I regard it as circumstantial evidence. If these "ethnic groups" really exist, why doesn't anyone self-identify with any of them in practice whenever a census comes along that asks millions of people about their ethnic identity? I find that rather curious. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s evidence that these are not national identities. A secondary source explicitly saying so would be better if we wanted to state this in an article, but nevertheless it helps us understand the meaning and usage of the name for purposes of defining the subjects of articles. —Michael Z. 15:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I will repeat here the opinion of the majority that the nominator does not seem to have fully understood the topic, and among Wikipedia readers there really are people who want to read not about East/West Slavic languages, but about East/West Slavs. By the way, I have long dug up several sources and wanted to create a section "Culture" in each of the articles (emphasizing some differences between West Slavs, for example, from south or east ones). Sincerely, Emenrigen (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I'm always open to being corrected on anything I have gotten wrong. Could you explain what I may have missed about the topic? I should point out that the number of users in WP:SUPPORT of keeping, merging or deleting an article is irrelevant, because "AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount." If you can cite which policies or guidelines are in support of keeping these pages as standalone articles, you could be building a case. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Živković, Tibor; Crnčević, Dejan; Bulić, Dejan; Petrović, Vladeta; Cvijanović, Irena; Radovanović, Bojana (1 July 2013). The World of the Slavs : Studies of the East, West and South Slavs: Civitas, Oppidas, Villas and Archeological Evidence (7th to 11th Centuries AD). Belgrade: Istorijski institut. ISBN 978-86-7743-104-4.
^ Cetinich, Daniel (31 July 2003). South Slavs in Michigan. MSU Press. ISBN 978-0-87013-902-4.
^ Živković, Tibor (2008). Forging Unity: The South Slavs Between East and West : 550-1150. Institute of History. ISBN 978-86-7558-573-2.
^ Gavazzi, Milovan (1959). Fate of the ancient Slav heritage among the South Slavs. Matice Srpske. ISBN https://www.google.de/books/edition/Fate_of_the_ancient_Slav_heritage_among/8NrqtgAACAAJ?. ((cite book)): Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); External link in |isbn= (help)
^ Prpić, George J. (1967). The South Slavs. University of Kentucky Press.
^ Gasparov, Boris; Raevsky-Hughes, Olga (10 July 2018). Christianity and the Eastern Slavs, Volume I: Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-30247-1.
^ Libera, Jerzy (2008). The East Slavs in the Area Between the Rivers of Wieprz and Bug: History, Culture, Religion. County Starosty. ISBN 978-83-926455-9-7.
^ Tempest, Snejana Jane (1995). Water, Folk Belief, Ritual and the East Slavic Wondertale. Yale University.

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!} 23:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2009 Maccabiah Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not merit separate articles. Giant Snowman 19:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my previous comments. We need better-developed articles instead of these thinly sliced intersections of an edition per sport. The literature does not support that. gidonb (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Rugby union. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I 100% agree with what gidonb says. SWinxy (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: including others as per nom. Indianfootball98 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerio Nasema[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 16 August 2022 (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'd be willing to restore this to Draft space as long as the page creator goes through the WP:AFC process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can We All Get Along? The Segregation of John Muir High School[edit]

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

i really fail to see how this is a notable film (and it hasn't even been officially released yet), there's no real in depth coverage and it doesn't appear to have won any awards. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added awards, although they are not big ones. Would a review or article from a major newspaper help give this film more notability? Thatsmetrying (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable awards, so it's not really relevant. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be needed to pass WP:NFILM. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concurring with User:Praxidicae here regarding the notability of awards that were added. Impact Docs Awards, Best Shorts Competition and IndieFEST all appear to be run by the same group^[1] with very unclear guidelines for judging/assessment. Not sure if I'd go so far as to say that they are entirely paid ads under a guise of awards, however the groups do gain "admission fees" and there are numerous "honorary mentions" and a whole 11 "Awards of Excellence" awarded in 2019. Not convinced these meet WP:RS guidelines, let alone WP:GNG. Articles fails NFILM and sources that are reliable fail significant coverage and are focused on the history of segregation and not the film. Bgv. (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
NYT 1970 "PASADENA SCHOOLS TOLD TO INTEGRATE"			Relating to Prop 13, not subject	✘ No
Pasadena Now 2022 ""Award-Winning Documentary..."	~ Geographically specific to area of premiere	~ No author named		~ Partial
theindiefest.com "Humanitarian Award.."	? Cannot discern	Reputability of awards is questionable (See above)		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

^ All three share the same address 8861 Villa La Jolla Dr. #13131 La Jolla, CA 92039, which is illustrated with a google search of the address, and website layouts are cookie-cutter copies of one another.

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Google scholar shows a highest citation of 9. Part of a promotional walled garden. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom and above analysis. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find things to support WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Gusfriend (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Subject does not show notability. NMasiha (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:PROF HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts far too low for WP:PROF notability. Article claims he has published books but published reviews would be needed for WP:AUTHOR notability and I found none. WP:GNG notability also not evident. Nomination diagnosis of a promotional walled garden appears to be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for wellness gurus. There's no indication that one could make a wiki-notability case for the subject as an author, a researcher, or anything else. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centeredness Theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAP (health technology and life science). XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and reads like a promotional site. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:57, 17 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anupapaduka[edit]

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

The article has been unsourced since 2009 (the single book by Charles Leadbeater with no page number given is clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia). The creator of this article Dchmelik has created a lot of unreliable articles which are all stubs or unsourced related to Theosophy and there is a discussion about this at WP:FTN regarding their edits [2]. Dchmelik has now redirected Anupadaka into Anupapadaka. If you look these terms up they do not mean "a philosophical term about reality such as the 'anupadaka plane' or gods or Dhyani-Buddhas that fit the definition" so this is very bad original research. I looked up the word "Anupapadaka", it is used in Theosophical literature to mean birth by metamorphosis or birth without parents, i.e. "parentless" and only that part of the article is correct. There is no mention of an "anupadaka plane", or anything else that Dchmelik has written so this is original research and against policy. I am not sure why we would need an entire article dedicated to this one word which was used by Helena Blavatsky and her followers. I believe it would be best to delete this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Plane_(esotericism)#Anupapaduka_or_Monadic_Plane. You're entirely wrong (other than original translator made typographical error (typo) and I did, so moved to correct) and it's in Pure Land. Apparently I originally wrote it in more general term and not plane, but in '0s a 'WP:patroller' read my reference and said it's about Anupadaka Plane... charts/diagrams/graphs don't always say 'plane' after long words, just at top or side description, nevertheless at the time I moved citation to 'plane'... of course you never actually read the talk page to see what that person said (nor source). Citations don't necessarily require page numbers but I can probably get (such tertiary authors are cited/quoted/referenced in numerous articles and many others state same). I could possibly concede that seven planes theory four higher/spiritual don't need their own articles but am inclusionist. '(Un)sourced' aren't verbs standardly with that definition (but neologisms or private language) which correct terms include 'cite/credit/quote/reference' (some shorter so can save time).

Speedily delete old typos Anupadaka & Anupapadaka (redirects) (but if source material's 100 to 140+ year typo is currently redirected unfortunately people will still expect, as happened with translation of sine (wave) from older language then standardized wrong)--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 05:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The page creator has now moved the page twice in two days, so as he says above, the redirects at Anupadaka & Anupapadaka should also be deleted. There is no encylopaedic content on these pages. There are already pages on Theosophy that would be the home for this information if there were anything to say about it. The fact that no one has expanded this article in 13 years does suggest that it is at best a footnote to the larger articles on Theosophy. There is also a problem with the way this and some related articles do not seem to have sufficient focus. Whilst born out of reading on theosophy, they claim relevance to other religions and religious traditions. Information is not notable for any of these, and apparently not for theosophy either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Plane (esoterism)' actually already mostly is a Theosophy article in sense of where most planes ideas came from (having copied seven plane theory from Hinduism to the world and became standard 'New Age', etc., theory) so is most relevant article it could be transferred to whether heading or footnote. Hinduism article cites Theosophy is a Hindu reform movement, so I think is relevant for those (unsure about the other).--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 07:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Hinduism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons argued in the nomination and by Sirfurboy; much like the case with Adi (metaphysical plane), there doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2022 (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. Waggers TALK 13:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Estevan Payan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 81st in the featherweight division, and he has never previously appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, United States of America, and Arizona. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails MMA Notability as per WP:NMMA Lethweimaster (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failing WP:NMMA is irrelevant if WP:GNG is established. There are a lot of articles from MMAJunkie.com that to me go beyond routine. Then there is the Lethwei World article that due to the style's limited nature in US lends to notability. There are also some MMAFighting.com and MMAMania.com references. Going thorough all those, I say GNG is met so keep. RonSigPi (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions does not constitute significant coverage. There is no claim to notability for the subject which has not won any notable championships WP:ATHLETE. Lethweimaster (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple of the references list the fighter name in their title, hardly passing mentions but instead clearly the focus of the references. And I think winning a notable championship is WAY to high a bar for notability. RonSigPi (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from MMAFighting and MMAJunkie are literally just fight announcements with a little bit of info about both fighters padded in. This is pretty routine and standard coverage you come across with most mixed martial artists, nothing significant to pass GNG I'd say. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear he doesn't meet WP:NMMA and a boxing record of 1-15-1 clearly fails WP:NBOX. His fight for a "world title" in lethwei (a Burmesa martial art) is somewhat dubious given it was his first and only lethwei fight and took place in Wyoming. Of course, anyone can create a organization and have world championships, but it needs to be a credible organization to show WP notability. That leaves WP:GNG which is not generally considered to be met by fight results, announcements, and databases--all pro fighters can show those. The fact that his name appears in an article's title is no indication of meeting WP:GNG when the bulk of the article is just a listing of the fights on that card or of results. Given his fight records, it's not surprising he's never come close to, much less won, a major title. Papaursa (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't for a world title in Lethwei, I dont know where you saw that. It was also not Lethwei as per World Lethwei Federation, if you read the article. I agree with point mentionned. Lethweimaster (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in the article's fight records section where it says "For the inaugural Cruiserweight World Lethwei Championship Title." Papaursa (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I follow Lethwei pretty closely, I know this fight was not for world title. Also no mention of it the article by Lethwei World. They even explain that the fight was not considered Lethwei. [3] Lethweimaster (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tluanghup Thang[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. A Burmese Google search yielded nothing useful. Google News had nothing in Burmese. DDG just had the usual stats sites. The best that I could find was a squad list mention in an Indian football blog. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:16, 15 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Mar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks reliable sources under WP:MUSICBIO despite fulfilling WP:MUSICBIO#C2. There is limited coverage of the charting single itself and she is only a featured artist (edit: apologies, that is incorrect, she is fully credited). Significantly, the majority of sources are self-published or primary. Besides the chart listings, almost no other sources fulfill reliability guidelines, even after being cleaned up. Simply fails to have the necessary independent reliable sources anywhere else besides little more than a paragraph about Stay the Night. RedBaron12 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. RedBaron12 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous nom and the first nom. Having a single charted song or even album doesn't make one notable, it's just a CCS. If the song is notable (as in covered by multiple independent RS and not just a chart placement), we can have an article about that but that doesn't make Mar notable themselves. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the song has coverage and evidence that it charted in not one but two national charts so therefore passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2 which is enough to pass as notable and able to have a page on the site as there are other artist pages which have charted in one national chart, with less sources and less content on the page, yet they still stand so the evidence given and notability of the song makes it notable. It is both her and Sigala's song she isn't a feature, this has evidence. If the sources were "unreliable" that would of been made a point more in the 2nd nomination and would of been deleted then. RedactedUser300 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous AfD for this singer was closed just last week as Keep and there were no delete votes after the nomination. However, that AfD was closed by a non-admin, which accomplished little beyond unleashing yet another AfD upon us. Something has gone wrong here with our WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NAC processes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was weak at best and two of the five comments besides the nom expressed significant issues with the page that are unable to be resolved. I considered a tag to improve sources, but in my opinion, those sources just don’t exist. That was why I relisted it. RedBaron12 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per rational provided by Praxidicae and nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has an extensive discography of note as well as her internet personality career. Olajidebt (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"extensive discography of note" based on what? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete about the best I can find are famousbirthdays.com and bigstarbio.com, neither of which is useful here. No Gnews hits in any media we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found sources looks like they pass GNG and there are plenty of sources online. They have a song played by major broadcasters, they've been a judge on a national broadcast TV show, and they are very active on Twitch and YouTube. I think one of the problems people like Mar face here is that their platform is different compared to other creators. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which sources are those? Activity on Twitch and YT are irrelevant to notability. Cmon now. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the sources I used to come to my conclusion. Over three million streams of one of their songs in the UK (then million world wide), 4.3 million monthly listeners on Spotify, Currently has a song at number 12 (peaked at 11) on the UK Top 40 chart (The top 40 is broadcast on BBC Radio 1 and MTV in the UK), Top 0.03% on Twitch, has partnered with major brands a few times, interview one, interview two, commentary on the toxic culture in streaming spaces.
Does Talia Mar meet the requirements for notability? Yes, they pass the SNG for music under bullet point 11. Their song is played by BBC Radio One and MTV in the UK.
Additionally their work is streamed millions of times a month. This is not firmly a reason for notability but it should be taken as a factor.

Taken in context with all the coverage of her can it be established that she would be notable without her song being played on BBC Radio One? Yes, there are multiple interviews, mentions of her, and mainstream products created under her name.

If the rules are strictly interpreted would Mar still be notable? Probably not, I've said this before when talking about the emergence of streamers/creators like Talia Mar. I think it's important to be mindful that these people are notable but that the rules we have here to establish notability doesn't always fit well with these new mediums. The rules are principles and it's ok to be flexible in cases like this.
There is more evidence supporting keeping this article then there is evidence against it. If this edge case of people becomes a problem then we may need to revisit the policies that surround notability. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue again, which has already been discussed above, is that the vast majority of sources are merely statistics or chart numbers.

None of those other sources for interviews really lend to notability and only the mirror.co.uk is reliable. None even cover the song that fulfills notability guidelines. Yes, she technically meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2 and probably WP:MUSICBIO#C11. That does not get past the lack of meaningful sources revealed by a search.

Passing references and interviews in YouTuber blogs can’t really be classed as significant, reliable sources. Plenty of streamers and creators meet the respective rules without ignoring source criteria. RedBaron12 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr Vulpes, whose opinion on this matter I wholly agree with. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find Dr Vulpes's arguments convincing. Also, "Stay the Night" now certified Silver (200,000 equivalent units) by the BPI. --Muhandes (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO calls for reliable sources to verify the claim being made that a particular criterion is met. In this case, WP:MUSICBIO#2 is claimed, so we need a source to support that it's charted that's independent of the musician. And we've got that; Billboard very clearly confirms that she has written a song that has indeed charted. Since WP:N notes that an article must meet either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline, and this very clearly meets a subject-specific notability guideline, this article should not be deleted and any deletion based in WP:DEL-REASON#8 is erroneous. There exist enough independent sources to write a short article about this individual, as Dr vulpes has shown above, though I am in full agreement that the article needs to be cleaned up in order to reduce its reliance upon WP:SPS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am personally changing my opinion of this article to keep based on Red-tailed hawk's reasoning on WP:N. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, and may need the addition of a sourcing template.

I originally relisted the deletion nomination mainly because I thought a consensus had not sufficiently been decided last time. RedBaron12 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2022 (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!} 07:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Jet[edit]

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

A strange article history. This was a hijack of Wall of Wind, a similar facility at Florida International University. The researcher who created this article, User:Alymousaad (not coincidentally the author listed on all citations) moved from FIU to LSU in 2013 and changed the article in 2019. Unfortunately, the LSU installation does not appear to be generally notable or even known by the name "Open Jet". (The FIU one, on the other hand, picked up media coverage.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Louisiana. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, with a BEFORE search revealing no additional notability-conferring sources. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tube doesn't have any independent coverage that I could find. SWinxy (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferenc Velkey[edit]

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

Olympian who fails GNG. There is an academic of this name who is probably a different person. Avilich (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one source cited seems to be an IMDB-type site that will list any Hungarian athlete, regardless of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partofthemachine (talk • contribs) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Italian wikipedia equates him with the basketball player who was on the bronze medal winning team at EuroBasket 1946. St Anselm (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basketball player is called "Velkei", not "Velkey". They may be identical, but of the sources in the Italian page this database shows no awareness of it, and I cannot confirm it with this source either. Avilich (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm and Avilich: It was the same person according to [4] and Olympedia lists both surnames. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to determine notability or to verify the facts. --Bigneeerman (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I know there are not a lot of information about him, but he played 3 Basketball European championships and at the Olympics handball. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Handball, and Olympics. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever their identity, sportspeople need to have received significant coverage according to WP:SPORTCRIT#5; participation in notable competitions was deprecated as a criterion of notability in this RfC, and I'm still not seeing how this person meets GNG. Assuming all of your search hits down below are about him, they appear not to meet criterion #4 which requires "reports beyond routine game coverage" and beyond mere passing mentions or team member listings. Avilich (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Malo95.--User:Namiba 20:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has somebody access to arcanum and can look at the following search results: TEXT=((Velkei OR Velkey) AND (Kézilabda OR Kosárlabda)) DATE=(1930-01-01--1940-01-01)? 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is enough to make me believe sufficient coverage WP:NEXISTs to satisfy BASIC/GNG, particularly in local language sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the search results above, would you mind explaining why they meet criterion #4 of WP:SPORTCRIT which requires "reports beyond routine game coverage" and passing mentions? Your Małolepszy 2013 source also contains no prose and is just a team roster. Avilich (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is clear that the majority of the coverage is passing mentions in routine sports coverage, as it is for any sportsperson, it seems very likely (if not almost certain) that many of the hits on Arcanum Digitheca contain significant coverage (e.g. "Velkei Ferenc the famous Hungarian international referee...", "Only of these Velkei Ferenc was an international referee at the age of 50...", "Velkey Ferenc today the referee who is Bp Vörös...", "According to Ferenc Velkei, deputy general secretary of Hungarian basketball...", "Ferenc Velkei is a multiple Hungarian national team player...", "...we inquired with Ferenc Velkei, the international commissioner of the MKOSZ...") – unfortunately the snippets are extremely brief (and Google translate does an awful job of translating them) and Arcanum is paywalled. There are even more hits by extending the date window up to the present. For me, it is unreasonable to think there is no significant coverage in these local language sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2022 (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. None of the keep arguments have provided any meaningful analysis of the sources they assert pass GNG and bare assertions do not carry weight. Non policy based and IAR arguments do not carry much weight against the professed will of the community on sports bios. The delete side includes analysis of the sourcing that shows it does not pass gng and no attempt has been made to refute this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Pérez (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The source does not mention the name "Francisco". F Adesdae 378 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. F Adesdae 378 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is listed as "Vincente Perez" in the source the OP refers to. But User:EchetusXe has added a few more. St Anselm (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, the added sources look like passing mentions to me. Do you disagree? –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing already in the article to show notability. Giant Snowman 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GiantSnowman. Could you please explain which sources provide in-depth coverage of the individual? MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking only me when others have !voted keep as well? Giant Snowman 07:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have said "sufficient sourcing", so I would like to understand what these are. Would you care to answer the question? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Draftify - Article about footballer who primarily played in the amateur era of Argentine football, when he was selected to the national team that competed at the 1934 FIFA World Cup finals. I can't locate in-depth coverage in online coverage, but he receives passing mentions, and I think it's reasonable to expect that offline (print) sources in the 1930s will have SIGCOV. Updating because I checked some of his 1934 FIFA World Cup final teammates, and there is online SIGCOV for the more notable ones. I suspect print sources will provide SIGCOV, but nobody here has access to those yet. Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Das osmnezz, I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that allows an article to be kept in mainspace with the hope that notability will eventually be demonstrated. That's what draft space is for. Is there a good reason to keep instead of draftify in this instance? –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single source in the article is his name in a list or in pure, primary stats. There is not a single source of SIGCOV here, so the article objectively fails our guidelines. The only way a keep !vote in this situation can be valid is if it introduces a source meeting SPORTCRIT #5 or explicitly advances a very strong IAR argument as to why we should expect GNG coverage to exist despite NFOOTY being deprecated precisely because it was a poor predictor of GNG. Otherwise keeps should be disregarded per ROUGHCONSENSUS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: no one has specifically identified the multiple sources they claim make the subject pass GNG (and in fact most of the keep !votes are pure arguments to avoid). Since GNG/SPORTBASIC rejects stats reports, passing mentions, routine coverage, and everything primary or non-independent, we must assume they are referring to sources other than those in the article currently. So what are they? JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I previously did a WP:NAC on this as keep. JoelleJay left a message on my talk page asking me to relist, and while I don't see how this could have been closed any other way, given this is a NAC that has been questioned, I'm going to leave this to an admin to close and revert my close. I am not relisting this despite JoelleJay's request to do so, though an admin can at their discretion. As it had already been open seven days when I closed it, I would be OK with an admin closing it at any time, but it's their call to make, not mine. Smartyllama (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Smartyllama#Perez AfD for JoelleJay's message and my response. Smartyllama (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jogurney and think we should IAR in this case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this was written by a brand-new editor, it would not pass AfC. Current sources [5][6][7][8][9] merely mention his name and do not provide significant coverage by any stretch. This means that the article fails NSPORTS (which explicitly requires SIGCOV sourcing to be included in the article) as well as GNG. If anyone finds better sourcing or can explain how these sources meet GNG, please ping me and I'll reconsider. Not opposed to Draftify if someone is interested in bringing it up to our standards. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see some discussion in response to dlthewave's source analysis. I would remind participants that the community was clear that caps alone do not confer notability. You can not LOCALCONSENSUS around this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone saying to keep based on caps. The keep voters are saying to keep per GNG or IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources all fail WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2022 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaat[edit]

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

This is not a valid disambiguation page: all entries are WP:Partial title matches not known solely as "Jamaat". An alternative to deletion might be a ((Wiktionary redirect)) to wikt:jamaat. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no disambiguation needed. Leschnei (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I don't think there is actually any harm in having this as a DAB, especially as the alternative proposal is a redirect to a wiktionary page which essentially just repeats what the headline in the DAB says. I don't know if WP:PARTIAL has the same relevance when it comes to arabic, rather than latin. Many of the listed pages seem relatable to the topic, and without a clearly identifiable primary topic article to take it's place, I think the DAB remains the better option. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the vast majority of the items are related to Islam, I have added it to the Islam delsort. 03:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep or merge. As I was saying on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamiat, all of the terms on these pages are actually derivatives of the same root word, many of them are just rendered with different transliteration in English. This is simply an Arabic word that means "group," but there are a wide range of organizations using it in their name since it is a prevalent loanword in Indonesian, Urdu, and Swahili. Also, many of these terms appear with multiple different spellings in English, so the WP:Partial title match reasoning doesn't hold up in this case. You can see this in pages like Jamiat Kheir, where the excerpt reads "Jamiat Kheir (Jam'iyyatou Khair; Arabic: جمعية خير; Arabic pronunciation: [dʒamʕijjatu xair]; different Latin spellings have also been used in the past, such as Djamiat Chair, Djameat Geir, Djamijat Chaer, Jam'iyyat khair or Jamiatul Khair)" Similar examples can be found on many pages that include Anglicized Arabic terminology. Perhaps there is a need to standardize transliterations on Wikipedia, but until then, it's necessary to consider different transliterations of the same word or concept as being the same, even if there are large discrepancies in the English spelling. Chagropango (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All WP:PTM, and Chagropango is correct that this is essentially the same as Jamiat: جماعت (assembly) is a Persian loanward from Arabic جماعة. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least two of the articles (Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami) mention this as a shorter form of the party's name. Peter James (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PTM KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Creek Entertainment[edit]

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

This is a company so WP:NCORP guidelines apple. I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't found anything useful. Can't verify whether Alliance Films is the mentioned parent company or a redirect there might have been appropriate. Also noting that NCircle Entertainment will also need to be deleted with this article as a merger will no longer be possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:28, 22 August 2022 (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. based on new sources found in this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Crockett[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. On newspapers.com – which has a ton of US newspapers and should contain plenty of such information – I found nothing but passing mentions (i.e., cast lists) for the queries Charles Crockett Guilty Hands, Charles Crockett Gingham Girl, Charles Crockett Princess from Hoboken. Ovinus (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the LOC newspaper database has over 3000 hits on his name, all kinds of stuff. This one in 1925 lists him as a "veteran character actor" [10]. I think he was in many films without being recognized for any one role in particular. Searching for "Charles Crockett death" and similar, I get nothing. I'm leaning non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also tried a search in the New York State newspapers database, [11], nothing beyond cast lists. New York was likely the largest media market at the time he was active, but no hits from NYC or anywhere in the state we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage. TolWol (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
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.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Katchmer, George A. (2002). A Biographical Dictionary of Silent Film Western Actors and Actresses. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-7864-4693-3. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Charles B. Crockett was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on December 29, 1870, and he died on June 12, 1934, in Los Angeles, California, at age 64. I could find very little on his background except that he came to the screen from the stage. He may have appeared in comedy shorts as four of his twelve features were of that genre. He appeared in four Westerns two of which were considered epic. He also appeared in two historical and One Northwest film. Some of his films are: 1924: The Millionaire Cowboy with Lefty Flynn and Gloria Grey, (her father); Sundown with Besside Love and Roy Stewart (Joe Patton). ..."
2. "Charles Crockett". Rotten Tomatoes. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22.
  The entry provides 74 words of coverage about the subject. The entry notes: "Charles Crockett was an actor who had a successful Hollywood career. Crockett began his career with a role in the Richard Dix historical feature "The Vanishing American" (1925)."
3. "Will Rogers of Filmdom". The Cincinnati Post. 1926-08-14. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article was published in 1926 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "Charles Crockett, well-known character actor, who was teamed with Claude Gillingwater a year ago in Frank Lloyd's "Winds of Chance" and who played the Indian agent in "Vanishing American," was selected by Svend Gade to play Senov, a street faker and carnival Punch and Judy operator in Corinne Griffith's Capitol Theater's photo-feature opening Sunday. In addition to being an actor of repute, Crockett is known in studioland as "Hollywood's Will Rogers," so famous have his many humorous after-dinner speeches become in every quarter of the studio city."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Academy Dinner". Bulletin. No. 10. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. 1928-05-03. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22.
    The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "An amusing innovation was occasioned by a speech by "Karl Frankel" introduced as a famous engineer from Berlin, Germany, who lampooned the Academy, the Engineers, Hollywood and the motion picture industry so cleverly that all guests, except the few who were informed, were unaware of the deception until Mr. Niblo re-introduced "Herr Frankel" at the end of his speech as Charles Crockett, the well known character actor of Hollywood."
  2. "Into Her Kingdom At Senator Stars Corrine Griffith". The Sacramento Bee. 1926-08-14. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "Claude Gillingwater, Charles Crockett, Marcel Corday and a number of other screen luminaries are listed among those playing important parts In Into Her Kingdom."
  3. "Capitol Theater". The Scranton Times-Tribune. 1927-10-05. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    Regarding the 1927 silent film The Princess from Hoboken, the article notes: "One of the finest characterisations in this story of the screen is by Edmund Burns but there is also a fine bit of character acting, by Charles Crockett."
  4. Shaffer, Rosalind (1929-03-24). "Film Stars Under Unique Discipline. Frequently Are Called Down In Social Way". The Commercial Appeal. Chicago Tribune Press Services. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Hollywood has its full share of these love feasts and at one of these given for Mr. Lasky, Charles Crockett, the other gag man, got up and told, as an out-of-town exhibitor, that he was going to have to refuse to show any more of the filthy sexy immoral pictures being produced by that company, Famous-Lasky. Mr. Jesse Lasky turned white and did not seem to be enjoying his dinner, but the situation was lightened by the toastmaster pulling off the false whiskers and introducing Mr. Crockett, for what he was."
  5. ""The Dressmaker From Paris" Is Recent Feature Starting Today". Ottawa Journal. 1925-04-04. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Other roles of importance in the cast have been assigned to Barry Gray, Charles Crockett, veteran character actor who is cast as the chief executive of the small town; Rosemary Cooper and Spec O'Donnell."
  6. "Historical Film Rialto Offering. "The Vanishing American" an Epic of the Conquering of the Red Man". The Tacoma Daily Ledger. 1926-05-23. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "Completing the all-star line-up of supporting players are such prominent names as George Magill, Shannon Day, Charles Crockett, Bert Woodruff, Bernard Siegel, Guy Oliver, Charles Stevens, Joe Ryan.
  7. ""Winds Of Chance," Rex Beach Nove, Makes Great Film". Bristol Herald Courier. 1925-12-13. Archived from the original on 2022-08-22. Retrieved 2022-08-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Claude Gillingwater and Charles Crockett as Tom and Jerry, two old prospectors eternally quarrelling, yet deeply devoted to each other, are a hit. Gillingwater has ever since his memorable debut as the Earl in "Little Lord Fauntleroy" been ranked as one of our best character actors and teamed with Crockett, his work has never been more convincing, appealing or enjoyable."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Charles Crockett to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard strikes again! Not sure how you found these... the Katchmer source is excellent. I'd withdraw the nomination but people have already !voted delete—@Oaktree b and TolWol: any objections? Ovinus (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm ok with the new sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2022 (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 Dagon#In popular culture. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dagon in popular culture[edit]

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

Dagon in popular culture violates our policies regarding stand-alone lists, indiscriminate collections of information, trivia and the general notability guideline. The vast majority of the examples relate to H. P. Lovecraft's Dagon, who is discussed in Deep One. Since barely any of the examples are sourced, there is nothing to merge into that article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Religion. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another TV Tropes style list of largely minor trivia with no actual reliable sources or prose text discussing the topic. Muddling things even further is the fact that many of these examples are actually allusions to H.P. Lovecraft's interpretation of Dagon which, while very obviously inspired/based on the original, is a distinct topic from the original Semitic god that this list is supposed to be about. The main article on Dagon has a small (and unsourced) prose section on popular culture representations, but as this list is nothing but an WP:EXAMPLEFARM, there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge over. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Rorshacma makes a convincing argument here, but I think it would be better served to just change the page into a redirect to the main article Dagon, so the page isn't deleted outright, but also the history of the page is preserved in the event that anyone wants to add the examples to the Dagon page's section on popular culture representation in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced trivia, most of it not even related to the actual historical deity. I wrote both most of the main article and most of these about deities related to Dagan (Shalash, Yakrub-El etc.) and even after all that I can't fathom why we need anything from the popculture article barring maybe the biology and astronomy trivia which do seem like a valid inclusion, if sourced properly. I really think we should leave the popculture-oriented approach to deity articles in the early 2000s, overall. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dagon#In popular culture. I agree with Historyday01, the content should be preserved for future improvement, a redirect is both WP:CHEAP and a helpful search term. Daranios (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dagon#In popular culture. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dagon#In popular culture in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Fails WP:IPC as a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dagon#In popular culture per above 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Grant[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO. I could not find any good reliable sources that show that this person is notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, and Canada. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with such a common name, I find anything and everything, but nothing related to the subject of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst there is some coverage, I'm not convinced it's enough to meet WP:GNG as it's mostly not independant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2022 (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. Deleting as the article in Draft space is more developed than this one in main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Philippines 2023[edit]

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

Recent recreation with no evidence that anything has even been announced yet. I believe this may be a too soon situation and probably should continue to be worked on at Draft:Miss Universe Philippines 2023 until there are enough sources discussing this. The two source I have found to even mention this are [12] and [13] which touches on how they will allow married women and mothers to compete. In short this does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Philippines. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and draft of the subject exist. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space for now per WP:TOOSOON. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: The subject's draft already exist. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in draft space then --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghatal Rabindra Satabarsiki Mahavidyalaya[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - seems like one of the thousands of local colleges in India which does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Doing WP:BEFORE I found some mentions of the college in books and catalogues (such as the 1964 New Educational Directory of the World) but no in-depth coverage. Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as it fails NSCHOOL. VV 08:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here the concern is the notability of an academic institution. For an academic institution or academic scholar, the most reliable search is Google Scholar. In the Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives, it is written that:

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Where possible, also please make use of The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to various subscription databases of additional resources. Not every resource available in that collection will always be relevant in every situation, so it is not necessary to exhaustively check every database, but there are many resources that may be useful for specialized or older topics that might not Google well.

If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted.

If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.

If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern.

Here, the search on Google Scholar shows many research articles published by the faculties of this college. Please see:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Ghatal+Rabindra+Satabarsiki+Mahavidyalaya&hl=en&as_sdt=0,22

https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=Ghatal+Rabindra+Satabarsiki+Mahavidyalaya&btnG=

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sebak-Jana/publication/314181461_Efficiency_Analysis_of_Higher_Education_Institutes_A_Study_on_Colleges_under_Vidyasagar_University_in_West_Bengal_India/links/58bb074b92851c471d531591/Efficiency-Analysis-of-Higher-Education-Institutes-A-Study-on-Colleges-under-Vidyasagar-University-in-West-Bengal-India.pdf

In summary, this college satisfies the notability criteria. User:Soumitrahazra

None of these sources show significant coverage of the college. --Muhandes (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSCHOOL. NMasiha (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Vidyasagar University as a WP:ATD. There's no question that sources verify it exists, but struggling to find significant independant coverage to show it's notable under WP:GNG or WP:ORG. However as it's undergraduate, I'm assuming it's degree awarding, so might be notable under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 if there's offline sources, but it's not independant as it's part of Vidyasagar University. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Affiliated to" is different from "part of". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (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 closed as the article had been hijacked from a different topic and has been reverted back to the prior subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Hidalgo[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence that subject of the article meets the WP:NOTABILITY threshold. — The Anome (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to pause my retirement from enwiki to point out that this is not the article subject that I created on the Canadian filmmaker and educator of the same name back in 2016, which can be seen in its last unhijacked form here. The page was then taken over by a series of IP accounts to repurpose or spam for an unrelated "ecommerce, dropshipping professor" in Spain. I won't !vote or take a position on whether the Montreal filmmaker is notable, but would like to see the article restored to its original topic and judged on those merits here, for the purposes of not rewarding vandalism. But I got to say I'm not seeing much for "my" Federico on Google, either. Oh and also please note Category:Films directed by Federico Hidalgo. Thanks to The Anome for the head's up! best, Shawn à Montréal (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Google's really only solid for finding sources published within the past couple of years — for a person whose peak notability claim is pushing 20 years ago, the best sourcing would have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest or Newspapers.com rather than the Google, and the sourcing is definitely there per a Newspapers search. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also taking the liberty of pinging @Bearcat:, who is the person for Canadian film. I see that the filmmaker was nominated for a Genie Award for best original screenplay for his 2004 feature. Whether that confers enough lasting notability is another matter. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per ping above, I am going to revert this back to the filmmaker on the grounds that hijacking an existing article about a different person is never appropriate under any circumstances. The filmmaker's sourcing isn't terrible, though a bit of improved sourcing wouldn't hurt, and he has a strong notability claim as a Genie Award nominee, so he should never have been erased that way at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect to Tedd Arnold. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huggly (book series)[edit]

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

Currently unreferenced. Fails GNG and WP:NBOOKS - Google searches return mainly bookseller and library pages, plus miscellaneous uses of Huggly as an adjective, etc; I can't immediately see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Draftification reverted by original creator without improvement of article. Paul W (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A Redirect is more appropriate Paul W (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tedd Arnold. I would suggest merge, but mainly the list of titles, which is already in the author's page. That page could have individual series denoted in the bibliography, but it's not really necessary and is more cleanup of that article than the one in question here. LadyofShalott 16:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page should be moved to the empty base title Huggly, but the recent Wikipedia policy forbids moving pages during an XfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:56, 16 August 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota Panhandle[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, no evidence of existence (i.e., being known as the South Dakota Panhandle) or significance in reliable sources. Fails WP:NGEO, possibly original research. ^Complex/_Rational 14:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not finding enough that convinces me that there is such an area. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have proposed the map appearing in the article for deletion on Commons, as it consists solely of a screenshot of Google Maps (which is copyrighted). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. It seems that would fall under speedy deletion criterion F3 (derivative work of non-free content). I went ahead and tagged it as such. ^Complex/_Rational 22:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:V. Could potentially be deleted per WP:CSD#G3 as a hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - potentially a meme. In any case, I'm not seeing any RS which discuss anything by this name. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:23, 22 August 2022 (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 Geometry Wars. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Wars: Waves[edit]

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

Unable to find adequate sources for uncited article. Article appears to be a minigame on Project Gotham Racing 4, and later apart of Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2. Both articles already include information regarding the Waves mini-game. Fails WP:GNG. If any adequate sources could be found, I suggest merging any additional information to the aforementioned articles and Geometry Wars. Skipple ☎ 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skipple ☎ 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Geometry Wars. Andre🚐 16:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Timur9008 (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geometry Wars, despite having a hands-on from IGN I think that, overall, it fails WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:31, 16 August 2022 (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. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With five well made arguments for keep and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh flags[edit]

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

WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here as there is contextual information, and many of the entries are the subject of articles. WP:NOTGALLERY is for "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text". Peter James (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter James. This contains plenty of legitimate encyclopedic context. Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom is almost correct but there are too many similar articles that would require similar discussion as well if deletion is really necessary. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominators concerns are unfounded. The article is an informative outline of the topic. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough links to articles to be a valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 11:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides sufficient contextual information RedBaron12 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2022 (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. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With seven well made arguments for keep and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish flags[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here as there is contextual information, and many of the entries are the subject of articles. WP:NOTGALLERY is for "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text". Peter James (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has not understood the deletion criteria cited. As Peter James says there is considerable contextual information, and significant information, accompanying each flag. Articles in the form of tables of images with associated text are not against WP:NOT. Thincat (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Dronebogus (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominators concerns are unfounded. The article is an informative outline of the topic. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough links to articles to be a valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 11:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides sufficient contextual information RedBaron12 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the arguments above and would stress that this is a notable subject which the article illustrates reasonable effectively. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2022 (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. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With seven arguments for keep, some of them strong, and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of English flags[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone did transfer some flags to Wikimedia previously. Category:Lists and galleries of flags Lot of articles like this. Need to have them all decided at once, not drag things out. Dream Focus 16:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they had accompanying contextual information and were considered for deletion on grounds of WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY then these criteria were being completely wrongly applied. Thincat (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here as there is contextual information, and many of the entries are the subject of articles. WP:NOTGALLERY is for "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text". Peter James (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has not understood the deletion criteria cited. As Peter James says there is considerable contextual information, and significant information, accompanying each flag. Articles in the form of tables of images with associated text are not against WP:NOT. Thincat (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Dronebogus (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominators concerns are unfounded. The article is an informative outline of the topic. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough links to articles to be a valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 11:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a useful list. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides sufficient contextual information RedBaron12 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2022 (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 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Amin Patel[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. No indication whether the book she co-authored is well known. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Hargovindkhurana (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2022 (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 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adi (metaphysical plane)[edit]

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

One of a group of ancient Theosophy stubs sourced to a century-old book, as with the others the notability and accuracy are both dubious, and in this case the article doesn't make much sense anyway, so a WP:TNT deletion might be warranted. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Divine Plane (or vice versa) or redirect to Plane_(esotericism)#Adi_or_Divine_or_Logoic_plane--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 13:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked at this one yesterday with a view to redirecting to Plane (esotericism) but at that point it made no mention of an Adi plane so I could not find a redirect target. The creator of this page (which has been a 2 line stub since 2009) has renamed "Divine Plane" in the Plane article in this edit [14] today. It is too early to know if there is editor consensus that the edit will stand, but the fact that no one has sought to speak of the plane as the Adi plane in that article since its conception suggest that Adi is not a commonly understood moniker for it. There appears to be no reason why anyone would be searching for "Adi (metaphysical plane)" and require redirection. In any case, whatever the consensus on redirection, there is nothing in this two line stub that merits a merge into the main article, and it should be deleted. I also note that AFD is not a vote. Requests to keep ought to explain why the information should be kept - what makes it encyclopaedic. In this case there is no encyclopaedic content nor subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm possibly/likely the one who added 'plane (esotericism): divine' in first place and as clarified there now is spoken of by thousands/millions for decades to 100+ years (perhaps not on Wikipedia)... including the person (or he knows) who created most metaphysical/spiritual/mystical/esoteric plane articles, but some years ago was recovering from illness so don't know is active. Only reason for parentheses heading (I'm unsure metaphysical is best term... main article says esoterism) is Adi is disambiguation, but the plane is in set of seven Theosophy translated from ancient Hinduism which all others have sections/articles and people who've read that set certainly do search.--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 14:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should be deleted per lack of reliable sources. If you look up the "adi plane", the first person to discuss it was Charles Leadbeater the Theosophist who said it was an obsolete term for the "divine world", the plane is not mentioned outside of Theosophy literature which are not reliable sources. The adi plane is not mentioned in Buddhist or Hindu cosmology so the article also contains original research. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism article itself cites Theosophy as a Hindu reform movement and I personally know many Hindus (including priests/Brahmins) who study or are in it.--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk

Delete for lack of encyclopedic content and lack of evidence this was ever discussed in a scholarly way by sources outside the Theosophist bubble. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2022 (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 14:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DNALinux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG and lacks third-party sources. Google shows no reliable sources, and while Google Books does include this which is very in-depth, it turns out the author of that book, Sebastian Bassi, is one of the two developers of DNALinux as seen on the distro's website so it is not an independent source. The other Google Books matches are all trivial mentions. Aoidh (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Aoidh (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not pass WP:NSOFT. ––FormalDude talk 09:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a modest independent review at EMBNet but that is not enough by itself for GNG. It's possibly worth a mention at BioLinux. But I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, hence the comment. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Linux distro. Andre🚐 16:04, 15 August 2022 (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 Madhya Pradesh cricketers. if more sources are found to show SIGCOV, may qualify for his own article. Based on current consensus will redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Sahni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. Although one source was provided at the previous AfD, it does not meet SIGCOV for Sahni as it is an interview with him about a game, not independent coverage of the man himself. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A GNG passing source was found in the previous AfD, and I believe it likely that there is more GNG passing coverage in offline and non-English language media, although none has been forthcoming since the previous AfD. At worst there's a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The one source that has more than a passing mention of him only has ~5 sentences actually on him, most of them in the context of his son:
Mukesh Sahni, father of Parth Sahni of Ujjain, included in state Ranji team was welcomed.
His father Mukesh Sahni has played Ranji for Madhya Pradesh.
Mukesh Sahni, resident of Dabripeetha was felicitated by members of Nagar Brahmin Samaj on the Kshipra coast.
Mukesh Sahni has been an excellent cricketer and he has played 12 Ranji matches for Madhya Pradesh. His son Parth took two wickets for MP while debuting in the final and after 88 years made a significant contribution in defeating a strong side like Mumbai.
There is a distinction between "trivial", "non-trivial", and "significant" coverage, with this falling squarely in the middle category. JoelleJay (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? I've never heard that before, and it doesn't seem to fit with WP:SIGCOV: " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." St Anselm (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC makes such a distinction. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC you mean? As far as I can tell from reading it several times no distinction is made between trivial, non-trivial and significant coverage. A distinction is made between trivial and non-trivial, because under BASIC non-trivial sources may contribute to passing notability if several are combined. But given that it refers to a 200 page book as being non-trivial I don't think it makes a distinction between non-trivial and significant coverage really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability This suggests there may be non-trivial sources that are nevertheless not substantial enough to provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looks like a choice between Keep and Redirect right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This won't necessarily help much, as I'm in the same camp as RF22 again here: this is either a weakish keep, based on the entirely reasonable assumption that there will be way more offline sources available, many of them not written in English, or I would be relaxed about a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers with a note being added to the entry there. From the pov of attempting to deal with systematic bias I'd probably tend slightly more towards keep than redirect I suppose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the requirement for a source of SIGCOV? I think the 5-sentence blurb above in the context of his son would really be stretching it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with the assumption BASIC would, if we could access the offline sources that almost certainly exist, allow us to pull sources together to have enough to demonstrate notability. I'm also, as I say, perfectly happy with a redirect, but a general feeling that there seem to be, for some reason, an awful lot of Indian subcontinent AfDs regarding cricketers makes me worry about the trend towards increasing whiteness in our coverage, so I'd be happy with a bold keep as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big "could"; the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who participated at a certain level has been rejected by the community. Perhaps draftification would be a good alternative to give folks an opportunity to build an article that demonstrates notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit skeptical of the "rejected by the community" language. In particular, with FC cricketers, the long-recognised concern was with those who had played a handful of matches - I'm not sure the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who have played 44 matches has been rejected by the community. St Anselm (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting would be a terrible idea - we all know that this is just delete the page in six months time. Redirection, as indicated by several editors, would be much more in line with consensus on cricket articles going back to at least 2018, preserves the page history and attribution and is more efficient. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how about the cricket project maintain a list of draftified pages to work on, and someone can make a single edit every six months to prevent G13. If no one has any interest in actually bringing the subject up to the bare minimum standards in the near future, I don't see why it should remain in mainspace on the (rejected) presumption that SIGCOV exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added the two ESPN articles - not sure why they weren't in before. And I think they constitute significant coverage - they are both analyses of how he was coaching. St Anselm (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How odd that they weren't added. They would help me trend towards a keep per my comment above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, they don't come up as "news". I suspect we all rely far too much on Google in our searches. St Anselm (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those has independent SIGCOV of Sahni, since the only content "on" him is just his own quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. Notability just isn't there, even with the trivial mentions in the ESPN sources provided. As usual WP:NEXIST is mentioned as a keep rationale, and while yes, sources do not need to be present in the article, they do need to be shown as existing. We can't just handwave away the lack of sources, otherwise every single article at AfD would be kept via WP:NEXIST; if we're going to cite WP:NEXIST, we have to show that they actually exist in order for that to be a compelling argument. WP:NSPORT mentioned above only discusses the likelihood of sources existing, it says nothing about being notable through playing at certain levels and makes it clear that significant coverage is still needed, which this article does not have. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BigFix Inc[edit]

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

Reads and looks like spam, no RS. A few days ago appeared also here: Draft:HCL BigFix Morpho achilles (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The strongest refs already cited for the product are [15] and [16]. I found a couple more with coverage of the company: [17], [18]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The title, infobox and the majority of content are about the company, not the product, despite the lede. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company and on that basis the article should be deleted. But there does appear to be satisfactory references to establish notability for the product. The best course of action is to draftify the article and change it so that the topic is clearly the product and not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. The product seems to be notable enough, so the page should be about the product rather than the company. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify agree with above, article now has a bit of a press-release tone, could be reworked with some decent sources as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2022 (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 12:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Spain[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Spain. Fram (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN. Totally unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and no way to determine this list is accurate. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2022 (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!} 07:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette Girl (2009 film)[edit]

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

Only one notable review (and a barebones one at that), created by SPA for possibly promotional reasons. Admittedly didn’t look that hard but it’s a nano-budget ultra-obscure indie by a non-notable director with a cast of nobodies and only 47 “reviews” (ratings; actual reviews number like 5) on IMDb so I’m not inclined to waste my time looking. Dronebogus (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google search does not reveal any more sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Felperin, Leslie (2010-02-23). "Cigarette Girl. "Cigarette Girl" is a hot low-budget mess, but fun". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  This film review is 190 words. The film review notes: "The sort of movie a young Russ Meyer would be making if he had digital cameras and were addicted to graphic novels, noir pastiche “Cigarette Girl” is a hot low-budget mess, but fun. ... Thesping goes frequently over the top, and tech credits offer a weird blend of invention and amateurishness, but the pic never bores."
2. Beifuss, John (2009-09-06). "Hammering coffin nails to craft a futuristic nightmare". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The film review notes: "Because the film mostly is set in the crumbling inner-city, effects creator H.G. Ray is able to evoke a futuristic setting with minimal but effective touches. ... The lo-fi sci-fi feel places "Cigarette Girl" in the tradition of such countercultural and artsy future films of decades past as "Five" (1951), "Glen and Randa" (1971), Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville" (1965) and Truffaut's "Fahrenheit 451" (1966). "Cigarette Girl" loses some momentum during its concluding act, in part because descent into gunplay is such a familiar story resolution and in part because the low budget becomes more obvious as the action moves into the underpopulated nightclub."
3. Herrington, Chris (2009-09-10). "Man With a Movie Camera". Memphis Flyer. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  The film review notes: "Cigarette Girl is a different kind of film for Mississippi native McCarthy ... McCarthy’s new film, by contrast, cuts back on spectacle while beefing up story. It also draws on a slightly different mix of cultural influences: girlie mags, trash cinema, and early rock-and-roll giving way to anti-hero comics, film noir, and gritty sci-fi. (Fritz Lang’s silent classic Metropolis is repeatedly referenced.)"
4. Beifuss, John (2014-05-22). "Mike McCarthy's 'Cigarette Girl' Lights Up Screens". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  The film review notes: "By the end of this week, "Cigarette Girl" will have been passed around more often than a cigar butt in a hobo jungle. A futuristic film noir in fishnet stockings about a sexy nicotine addict in the dystopian Memphis of 2035, 100 years after the birth of Elvis, the movie is being projected, promoted, streamed and celebrated. ... Ingeniously crafted and beautifully shot on a very low budget, "Cigarette Girl" is only the latest in a string of McCarthy features and shorts that exposes an obsession with grindhouse cinema, comic books, rock and roll, Russ Meyer, Elvis Presley and Memphis pop culture and history."
5. Beifuss, John (2008-09-26). "'Guerrilla' moviemaker John Michael McCarthy back behind the camera with 'Cigarette Girl'". GoMemphis. Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  The article notes: ""Cigarette Girl" is set in the year 2035, 100 years after the birth of Elvis. (Almost all McCarthy's films reference the King of Rock and Roll.) The title character is a glamorous-looking if much-abused rogue dealer who sells smokes at the bargain price of $50 a pack, undercutting the gangsters and "Clockwork Orange Mound" street hoodlums who control the illicit cigarette trade of the future. When the mob tries to snuff her out, Cigarette Girl kicks butt, filter-tipped and otherwise."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cigarette Girl to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Great work Cunard MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, great job finding those! Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has substantial coverage such as reviews in multiple reliable sources as identified by Cunard above so passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2022 (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. Improvements relating to content can take place outside of AfD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xizi[edit]

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

I can't find its chinese name for this article. The closest that I can find is Xici(繫辭), but it cannot translate as Xizi in pinyin. Ghrenghren (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly could be a hoax with the references. Also pinging User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the original creator. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. English-language sources:
  1. Leeming, David (2001). "Xizi". A Dictionary of Asian Mythology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 199. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195120523.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-512052-3. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
    The book notes: "Xizi: A book of the fifth century bce I Ching (see Yijing), which was in all likelihood composed by scholars not in sympathy with prevailing Daoist (see Daoism) thought. The book stresses mythology such as that of the emperor-god Fuxi (see Fuxi, Chinese Emperors)."
  2. Tucker, John Allen (1998). Itō Jinsai's Gomō Jigi and the Philosophical Definition of Early Modern Japan. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 222. ISBN 978-90-04-10992-6. Retrieved 2022-08-14 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The ten commentaries are (i–iv) Xiang zhuan 象傳 ("Treatise on the Symbols," which explains the trigrams composing the 64 hexagrams of the Changes); (v–vi) Da zhuan 大傳 (the "Great Commentary," a general treatise on the Changes—also known as the Xizi 繫辭, or the "Appended Judgments"); ..."
2. Chinese-language sources:
  1. Li, Kaiji 李開濟 (2018-05-01). "《易經-繫辭傳》中的德行光輝" [The Glory of Virtue in I Ching · Xici]. 人文社會與醫療學刊 (in Chinese). ISSN 2312-265X. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14 – via Airiti.
  2. Li, Yukai 李玉凯 (March 2011). "《易经·系辞传》解析" [Analysis of I Ching · Xici]. 山西社会主义学院学报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14 – via CQVIP.
  3. Xiong, Hui 熊辉 (December 2019). "关于《易经·系辞》中理想人格的探讨" [Discussion on Ideal Personality in the Xici of I-ching]. 哲学进展 [Advances in Philosophy] (in Chinese). 8 (4): 59–71. doi:10.12677/ACPP.2019.84008. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14 – via Hans Publishers.
    Xici is the same as Xizi. It is a different transliteration of the same Chinese term. The abstract notes: "There exists three levels of the ideal personality, i.e., gentleman, sage, saint, in Xici of I-Ching. The gentleman, who has been nurtured in the moral training, doesn’t have to be a winner, but he achieves his cause if the world is in peace and prosperity, and retires if in chaos. The sage has both talent and virtue, experiences the qian-tao so as to achieve the virtue, and uses the kun-tao to help the king for achievement. The saint, who owns the extraordinarily talent-virtue such that to explore and know the mystery, has been aware of the raising of the heaven and earth, and benefit the world by his high skill. From the gentleman to the saint, the higher the level of the ideal personality is, the closer the relation between the virtue and success is, and more thorough the achievement of the train’ goal and attribution for the society will be."
  4. Chen, Guying 陈鼓应 (January 1989). "《易传·系辞》所受老子思想的影响——兼论《易传》乃道家系统之作" [The Influence of Lao Tzu's Thought on I Ching · Xici——Also on Yi Chuan is a work of Taoist system]. 哲学研究 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xici or Xizi (simplified Chinese: 系辞; traditional Chinese: 繫辭) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be moved to Xici, shouldn't it? The character 辞/辭 is transliterated cí in pinyin, not zi in any major transliteration system as far as I know. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good catch. The transliteration is cí according to wikt:辭#Chinese, so I agree with moving the page to Xici. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two more English-language sources about Xici:
1. Ames, Roger T. (2015-03-05). "The Great Commentary (Dazhuan 大傳) and Chinese natural cosmology". International Communication of Chinese Culture. Vol. 2. pp. 1–18. doi:10.1007/s40636-015-0013-2. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article notes: "Although the commentaries are themselves composite and sometimes fragmentary, and certainly belong to a much later period than the manual itself, portions of them are hugely important as a summary statement of an early Chinese cosmology that has had a persisting influence on the Chinese sense of its world. One of these commentaries, the Xici 繋辭, also called the Great Commentary 大傳, is perhaps the most important source we presently have for exploring early Chinese cosmology. Given that a silk manuscript version of it dating from 168 BCE was found at the Mawangdui site in Changsha in 1973, we have at least a terminus ad quem for its compilation."
2. Zhu, Xi (2020). "Treatise on the Appended Remarks (Xici zhuan)". The Original Meaning of the Yijing. Translated by Adler, Joseph. New York: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/zhu-19124-005. ISBN 978-0-231-19124-1. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The book notes in the "Introduction" chapter: ""Treatise on the Appended Remarks" (Xici zhuan 繫辭傳), also called the "Great Treatise" (Dazhuan 大傳), in two parts (not divided according to hexagrams). This is the most philosophically rich appendix and was enormously influential in the Song-dynasty (960–1279) revival of Confucianism that Zhu Xi systematized."
  The book notes: "The Xici zhuan— also called the Dazhuan 大傳 (Great treatise) — comprises two of the "Ten Wings" (shiyi 十翼), or appendixes, of the Yijing. As is well known, it was one of the chief sources of ideas and terminology for the Song- dynasty revival of Confucianism. It is a composite work by unknown authors, probably written primarily in the third century BCE; that is, shortly before the Qin conquest in 221 BCE, judging from its similarities to other texts of that period, especially the "Syncretist" chapters of the Zhuangzi. The two references to the Xici in the Shiji 史記 (Historical records, ca. 100 BCE), by Sima Tan 司馬談 and Sima Qian 司馬遷, are the earliest known references to the text. Considering how heavily the Song revivalists of Confucianism relied upon the Xici, it may strike some readers as surprising how little of it is identifiably Confucian in content."
Cunard (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Cunard, particularly Ames' assessment. Moving to Xici (while leaving a redirect from Xizi, given the usage in the Tucker and Leeming sources) seems appropriate. AllyD (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cunard. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Cunard. Sources exist for this very historic book. Archrogue (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
- The article of A Dictionary of Asian Mythology is not Xici:
  - "which was in all likelihood composed by scholars not in sympathy with prevailing Daoist (see Daoism) thought": See the 4th Chinese-language sources given by Cunard. Most researchers believe it is a Confucian work, and some scholars think it is a Taoist work. But I've never heard anyone think this work is for against the prevailing Daoism.
  - "The book stresses mythology such as that of the emperor-god Fuxi": Xici had mentioned Fuxi, but the main point of Xici is not Fuxi.
- The Book by John Allen mentioned Xici (繫辭) as Xizi, but it looks like a typo. I can't any other book using Xizi to mention Xici, and 繫辭 cannot translate as Xizi in Chinese or Japanese.
- Xici is no doubt to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, people have studied it for nearly two thousand years. but the title and context of the article are totally nonsense. Just rewrite it. Ghrenghren (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2022 (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. The subject is mentioned in passing in several sources but in the course of this discussion only one independent, reliable source has been identified provides anything close to significant coverage. Based on that, and the !votes (only one editor is in favour of keeping, other contributors to the discussion favour deleting), I find that there is a clear consensus to delete. Waggers TALK 09:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Ghandour[edit]

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

A non-notable author, who wrote a non-notable book about a non-notable person and worked at non-notable companies (went to notable universities but that's it). Abysmally fails GNG and the subject specific guidelines too. A BEFORE search only turned up non-independent sources, or a passing mention in a press release by some organisation she was on the board of. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Lebanon. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom; no signs of notability found in search. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete, Not Agreed. The books and articles the author wrote were published in several notable platforms such as MidanMasr and Aeon. Her books were reviewed by renowned authors such as Tarek Baconi, Raja Shehadeh, Peter Harling, Ahdaf Soueif, Christopher Dickey, Matthew Mosley and Philip Mansel 2A01:9700:10C2:F300:C41:E267:B373:CA1 (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have links to those reviews? I found Mansel's quote on Amazon, but it reads like a blurb and has no date or publication. Some of the author authors you list are also listed as giving "Advance Praise" https://amalghandour.com/this-arab-life/ Unless these blurbs are quotes from a published independent review, they're not useful to establish notability. Vexations (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews of American Journalist Christopher Dickey (who has a Wikipedia page) and Journalist Matthew Mosley are published in several independent reviews, please see the following links: [19]http://thetanjara.blogspot.com/2009/05/book-on-ali-al-habri-awakens-painful.html and [20]https://www.newsweek.com/secret-life-arab-artist-ali-jabri-77299

This link combines the views of the author Amal Ghandour and that of Ahdaf Soueif : http://socialdifferenceonline.org/116/

Other reviews: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:c50d183c-96cc-3731-9caa-075d4f39320f, https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:af1a05e7-616d-3a87-b29e-0684ff1a6eed

Other reviews such as that of Matthew Mosley and Philip Mansel are on the cover of the book, I can provide a picture of it. Nourlyna 98 (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request for links to the reviews. Google books (This Arab Life, About This Man Called Ali) lists no reviews for either book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews of American Journalist Christopher Dickey (who has a Wikipedia page) and Journalist Matthew Mosley are published in several independent reviews, please see the following links: [1]http://thetanjara.blogspot.com/2009/05/book-on-ali-al-habri-awakens-painful.html and [2]https://www.newsweek.com/secret-life-arab-artist-ali-jabri-77299

This link combines the views of the author Amal Ghandour and that of Ahdaf Soueif : http://socialdifferenceonline.org/116/

Other reviews: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:c50d183c-96cc-3731-9caa-075d4f39320f, https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:af1a05e7-616d-3a87-b29e-0684ff1a6eed

Other reviews such as that of Matthew Mosley and Philip Mansel are on the cover of the book, I can provide a picture of it Nourlyna 98 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://thetanjara.blogspot.com/2009/05/book-on-ali-al-habri-awakens-painful.html was written by by "starbush" and self-published on blogger. Not written by Dickey, not published by a reputable publisher. It mentions that "A review by Matthew Mosley was published in the Beirut newspaper The Daily Star last Friday." but links to blogger, not the Daily Star. A search for https://www.thedailystar.net/search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22Matthew%20Mosley%22&gsc.sort= yields nothing. Vexations (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even more content has been removed yet again for copyright violations. Please take that in consideration when looking at the article and its history. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did it indicate copyright violations while the information provided wasn't identical to the one at https://amalghandour.com/about-amal-ghandour/ and it had the following copyrights note: The text and images of this website is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0). Nourlyna 98 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. NMasiha (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on links provided by Nourlyna 98
- "The Secret Life of an Arab Artist" (Newsweek) appears to be more a review of Ali Jabr's life than a review of Ghandour's biography.
- On "Debating the ‘Woman Question’ in the New Middle East | Women’s Rights, Citizenship, and Social Justice" is an article written by The Columbia University Center for the Study of Social Difference, an organization of which Ghandour is a member, and reports on a seminar that Ghandour and others led. This is not an independent source.
- "Life after Death: An Artist's Legacy" (Viva) is a scan of a magazine article (copyright issues?) about Ali Jabri. Ghandour is interviewed as knowledgeable on the subject, but this is not a review of her book.
- "The Final Stroke" (Living Well) is both a profile of Ali Jabr and a review of Ghandour's work. I would accept this as a valid citation regarding reviews of Ghandour's work.
- "Reviews" by Mansel and Mosley that appear on the book cover are not reviews at all, but are blurbs, and are generally paid endorsements of the book.
- As already noted, "Book on ali al-jabri reawakens painful memories" is an anonymous Blogspot post. It purports to reference a review by Mosley in the Beirut The Daily Star, but the link leads back to the blogger.com home page, not the Daily Star website. A Google search for this review turned up nothing.

There's something here, but I'm still doubtful that it's enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the provided comments. please note the following:

1. "The Secret Life of an Arab Artist" (Newsweek) written by Christopher Dickey, mentioned "what our good friend Amal Ghandour has given us in the telling of it is an account of love, loss, art and history in the Arab world as we've never really seen it before." referring to the book the author Amal Ghandour wrote. This is an independent review on the book she wrote about ALi Jabri entitled "About this man Called Ali"

2. "Life after Death: An Artist's Legacy" mentions on page 4 "Viva also tracked down the author of About This Man Called Ali: The Purple Life of an Arab Artist, Amal Ghandour, Having tirelessly combed through Ali's journals, letters, work and interviews to research her book, she is arguably the world's foremost expert on Ali Jabri" this is a testimony of the book's richness and knowledgeability of the topic.

3. Please check this independent review of Midanmasr on the author's biography [21]http://www.midanmasr.com/en/writerArticles.aspx?writerID=49

I hope that this is helpful Nourlyna 98 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.midanmasr.com/en/writerArticles.aspx?writerID=49 says: "

Amal Ghandour achieved a BSFS from Georgetown University, a MS from Stanford University, and has over 16 years of experience in research and communications strategy. She is the author of About This Man Called Ali, published in 2009, and her blog can be found at http://thinkingfits.blogspot.com". That's not a review, that's an author bio. Those are typically written by the subject or their agent. The page links to http://www.midanmasr.com/en/article.aspx?ArticleID=88, which is is BY Ghandour, not about her. I am now satisfied that no reliable secondary sources that discuss Ghandour herself exist. Given the dearth of sources is not possible to create a neutral, factual article about the subject that says anything other than that she is the author of two books. Vexations (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the other links I provided:

1. "The Secret Life of an Arab Artist" (Newsweek) written by Christopher Dickey, mentioned "what our good friend Amal Ghandour has given us in the telling of it is an account of love, loss, art and history in the Arab world as we've never really seen it before." referring to the book the author Amal Ghandour wrote. This is an independent review on the book she wrote about ALi Jabri entitled "About this man Called Ali"

2. "Life after Death: An Artist's Legacy" mentions on page 4 "Viva also tracked down the author of About This Man Called Ali: The Purple Life of an Arab Artist, Amal Ghandour, Having tirelessly combed through Ali's journals, letters, work and interviews to research her book, she is arguably the world's foremost expert on Ali Jabri" this is a testimony of the book's richness and knowledgeability of the topic. Nourlyna 98 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I added Newsweek as a source, remember? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amal_Ghandour&type=revision&diff=1104501186&oldid=1104493032&diffmode=source None of this is significant coverage about her. Nobody has ever written anything substantial about her, as far as I can tell. If significant coverage exists, show us where. Vexations (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for your feedback, I am trying to locate these sources, is what I provided so far enough to keep the article, meanwhile I am looking for more coverage about the author. Can I add a few details, such as her picture (the copyrights are provided in the website)? Nourlyna 98 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no, you cannot simply take a photographer's work without their express permission, with some rare exceptions. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others Vexations (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: As I recall (I can't check right now; my work internet will not allow me to access her site), Ghandour's website is published under a Creative Commons.0 license (no copyright claim, complete public domain). I find this an odd choice for an author's website, as it does allow any to use the text and images found there in any manner they choose, but that is the choice Ghandour has made, so the images published there should be compatible with Commons licensing requirements. If Ghandour has published photographers' work under this license without their permission, that is her problem to sort out, not Wikipedia's. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says both "The text and images of this website is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0)." and "Copyright © 2022 Amal Ghandour" That's contradictory, because https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ means whoever licensed that content has waived their copyrights. Now the work is both in the the public domain and not. It appears that the waiver is a recent addition. It wasn't there a couple of days ago. https://web.archive.org/web/20220815125405/https://amalghandour.com/about-amal-ghandour/

My patience is exhausted: Delete Vexations (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete I provided the necessary links as requested, I added the sources and copyrights are waived as mentioned in the website. There isn't anything that's spammy or against Wikipedia editing guidelines Nourlyna 98 (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't provide[..] the necessary links as requested. You were am trying to locate these sources, but didn't. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but so far, there is no evidence that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exist. Vexations (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've added the newsweek as a source, and it includes a review on her book by Christopher Dickey Nourlyna 98 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have their permission, how to express it? Nourlyna 98 (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have the author's permission to publish her photo and also the website mentions "The text and images of this website is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0)." Nourlyna 98 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete I provided the necessary links as requested, I added the sources and copyrights are waived as mentioned in the website. There isn't anything that's spammy or against Wikipedia editing guidelines Nourlyna 98 (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: I suspect the CC0 tag was added after prior spammy content was marked as a copyright violation. It does lead to a confusing situation! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete I provided the necessary links as requested, I added the sources and copyrights are waived as mentioned in the website. There isn't anything that's spammy or against Wikipedia editing guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nourlyna 98 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 August 2022 (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. Even nominator seems to think this is keepable based on presented RS. BusterD (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Garrison[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only source is a blog post from 2001, a filmography, and a video the subject is in. A quick google doesn't reveal any sources that could be added to back any of this up. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, and Film. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Withdrawn Let's make this easy, in the intervening almost month since I listed this, there have been significant changes to the article, adding more sourcing. I think the subject now meets GNG, so I will withdraw the AFD, since no one seems to be to keen on commenting on it either way anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Firstly I object to "a quick google" being what is quoted here. The searches that should inform a deletion nomination are detailed here: WP:BEFORE and having done that, I see plenty books confirming that she is indeed a well known actor and choreographer. I added them in. As far as dance films go, Dirty Dancing is a classic and she was the dance coach for the star. That appears to have kicked off a long career in choreography, acting and directing. I think she passes WP:CREATIVE. I saw weak because there are lots of passing mentions, rather than lots of writing, but in the context of CREATIVE allowing notability based on the notability of the works, she's clearly played roles in very many blockbusters. I think we need to be mindful that she was born in 1950 and worked in the 1980s and sources are likely going to be offline. CT55555 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the "quick google" is a flippant way of describing the actual looking into her I did. I found her mentioned, A LOT, in passing, in articles about the movies she has been involved in, and in passing in articles detailing notable choreographers she has worked with, Kenny Ortega obviously being chief amongst them. And while she may meet certain specific project guidelines, every article still has to also meet GNG, and passing mentions galore doesn't indicate the "Significant Coverage" part of GNG. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." FrederalBacon (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CT55555. User:elfelix
Keep, notability established by CT555555. Mujinga (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mujinga: I have no idea how your signature ended up merged into CT55555's above, but I have corrected this for you. I couldn't quite work out at first who the original !vote was made by. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh that's weird, must have been a typo on my part, thanks Bungle for the fix! Mujinga (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:49, 15 August 2022 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a rationale per request. The vast majority of the initial votes were given less weight as they either did not advance a policy based argument or were bare assertions without explanation. There was a detailed source analysis on offered sources that was not effectively refuted and the clear trend of the discussion was to delete after that. Beyond that there was a lengthy discussion on whether material based on interviews are sufficient to base a gng pass but that didn’t come to a clear conclusion that would justify devaluing the large majority of delete votes following the source analysis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Baegeni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fear the nominator is getting carried away nominating so many articles and isn't doing due diligence. Anyway, this player is a lot more notable than some, having won the Golden Boot in the Solomon Cup.[22][23][24][25] These are not routine match reports. He's a big deal in his country. St Anselm (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with everything @StAnselm: said, especially about the nominators actions. Besides the sources stAnselm found, I also found more sources which show he is notable in Solomon Islands: 5, 6, and 7. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The player is mentioned frequently in game reports and discussion of the team, but I'm not sure there's enough individual coverage here. In addition, the league he plays in is semi-professional, and even with the one appearance for the national team I'm not sure this crosses WP:GNG. Happy to reconsider if anyone comes up with stronger refs. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 17:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the thing. If we abandon subject-specific criteria for sportspeople, and only GNG matters, than being professional or semi-professional makes absolutely no difference. St Anselm (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The little coverage of him seems to be centered on the period of July-August 2017 so even if it was significant, it would fail WP:SUSTAINED. Note that the professional status of the league he plays in and the number of appearances for the national team has no bearing on his notability as an amateur footballer with zero national team appearances can very well be more notable than a professional player with handful of NT appearances if he has more significant coverage. Happy to change my !vote if better sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - only two of the sources above are good enough IMHO, but that is sufficient to show notability. Giant Snowman 18:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Something not including enough sources to pass WP:GNG should not be the criteria for proposing deletion, and efforts to improve the article should always be the first priority. It seems clear that this player can pass notability, the article just needs improvement. El Dubs (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty hard to conjure SIGCOV out of the sources provided, none of which provide information beyond shallow summaries of his performance at one tournament.

1. Solomon Star: 4 sentences stating the number of goals he had in the Solomon Cup and his likelihood of winning a tournament award, not SIGCOV, ✗ Fail

2. RNZ: two sentences and a quote, far from SIGCOV, ✗ Fail

3. SIBC 1: another 4 sentences on his Solomon Cup performance, not SIGCOV, ✗ Fail

4. SIBC 2: Routine match recap with a few sentences mentioning him, ✗ Fail JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to source analysis by JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am interested to see the impact of JoelleJay's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per JoelleJay, the sources provided do not even come close to providing the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and per JoelleJay. My searches come up with nothing helpful to demonstrate notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reference 1 looks a lot better than the impression given above. Reference 5 looks particularly good - I'm not sure why this one wasn't included in the reference analysis (or the next 2, but they are weaker). He does seem to have received a lot of coverage in his country for his Golden Boot win.Nfitz (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first reference is trivial, and the fifth one is a primary source because literally everything to be gleaned from it comes directly from him; everything else in that source is trivial. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new and incorrect definition of primary source. I don't see how the first reference is trivial. It's not the greatest in the world, but it passes the line. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither new, nor incorrect. It is Wikipedia policy: Further examples of primary sources include: ...other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews... It is primary when the person being interviewed is the subject of the article. When the content of the source comes from the person's mouth, that makes it both a primary source, and a non-independent source as a person cannot be independent of himself. If Wikipedia policy isn't good enough, here's a UMASS Boston guide that very clearly spells it out, and here is another guide that points this out, and here's the American Library Association pointing it out. Both Wikipedia policy and scholarly consensus is in agreement with the fact that interviews of this type are a primary source. When the person being interviewed is also the subject of the article, it makes it a non-independent source, as the person the content is coming from is the subject. Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary? sums it up well: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. So this isn't something I'm making up, this is a well-established rule across not only Wikipedia but elsewhere.

As for the reference that you think is not trivial, it says he's leading the golden boot race, scored some goals, and then quotes him directly (again, primary). If you take away the quotes from him, all that is left is trivial. If this is the best we can find for coverage, then there's no notability there because these sources are not sufficient by any metric, and certainly not by WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining a pretty obvious concept. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well they have, User:Sportsfan 1234. But there's a major flaw. There was no interview (and no one has mentioned one until Aoidh started telling us how we shouldn't mention them). Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job explaining why we can't use content from interviews here, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that quoting policies or guidelines or global consensus will produce a change in perspective...[26][27] JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance though, User:JoelleJay - there was no interview in reference 5, and no one mentioned an interview in the preceding discussion? How is this not a strawman argument? Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did inspire me to write up User:Aoidh/Essays/Interviews as a way to say a lot without having to rewrite it each time, but realistically the changes of someone bothering to read all of that is near zero. - Aoidh (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's smart, I bookmark all the contentious AfDs I encounter, but then always forget which ones included which arguments or even which bookmark folder they're in. And I definitely don't follow my own advice about the utility of explaining things over and over... JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a very good argument User:Aoidh, on why we can't use information solely from interviews to support facts - especially those that may be contentious. But that's not what we are doing here; we are trying to establish notability. You've spent a lot of time explaining why an interview is primary. But what interview - I never mentioned an interview? The article included quotes from a press conference! Also what hasn't been considered here is the context. That an article includes quotes from the subject of the article during a press conference doesn't suddenly make the article ineligible as a GNG reference. Even if the piece was exclusively an interview (and it most certainly isn't), that a national newspaper would have been interviewing the subject would indicate notability of the subject. BTW, there's no mention of press conferences in WP:PRIMARY (or NPOV, INDEPENDENT, or GNG; press releases are mentioned in the latter two - but there's a difference between a release, and a post-game press conference where multiple media outlets are asking questions). Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have an idea of what an interview is that is seriously inconsistent with both Wikipedia and scholarly consensus or what makes an independent source, especially your misunderstanding of who publishes the interview giving it some degree of independence. That doesn’t matter, the content is still from the subject himself, and is still not independent of himself. However, you say that you never mentioned an interview and then go on to explain that it’s actually a press conference. That’s an interview. Per Oxford, a press conference is "an interview given to journalists by a prominent person in order to make an announcement or answer questions." So anything from a press conference is not independent, and that’s why I brought it up. Aside from the quotes from press conferences, all that’s in those sources is trivial coverage. The sources are insufficient for determining notability because they’re either trivial or wholesale repetitions of press conferences and thus not independent. Based on previous AFDs, I understand that you’re not going to agree with me no matter how clearly the concept of sourcing is spelled out to you, and that’s fine. I’m not responding to change your mind, I’m responding so that someone else commenting sees the quality of those sources for what they are and can assess them accordingly, and to highlight to any closer that your argument is inconsistent with both Wikipedia policy and the scholarly community. I think I’ve made my point as best as I can, so unless you make a good point in your response, there’s no point in me continuing with this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
40 words of a quote in a 230 word newspaper article, doesn't turn the article into an interview. You've just spent 265 words without even noting where in Wikipedia there's guidance that 3 quoted sentences is not possible in a GNG source. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the source itself was an interview. I said that if you take out the quotes from him (which is not independent content), all that's left is trivial. You don't need a hyper-specific guideline to tell you that. - Aoidh (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the triviality. But more to the point - where is the Wikipedia guidance/policy that says interviews can't be used to establish notability. The essay WP:INTERVIEW notes that a multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A "multitude of interviews" is one thing this article's subject does not have, so thats a moot point. Wikipedia policy has already been linked above, and it's already been explained why interviews with the article's subject do not show notability for that subject; in what world would a person's comments be independent of himself? That makes no sense and as explained above is completely inconsistent with how interviews are treated both on and off of Wikipedia. However, this has been explained and I'm not going to explain further; you disagree with how interviews work and with the definition of triviality, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW is an essay so has little weight here. What the subject says about themselves is primary, per OR's guidance on interviews, and is not independent of the subject, per duh. GNG requires sources be both independent and secondary, therefore we cannot use material quoting what the subject (or anyone else) says (about anything) to establish notability. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the good sources I'm advocating (1 and 5) are being eliminated because they contain quotes. I've asked for which guidance or policy supports this. I've yet to have a clear answer - other than hand waving. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Hattie[edit]

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

While Hattie's commentary is often sought in news articles, there is little to no significant coverage of Hattie himself in reliable sources. Current content is predominantly unsourced. Adabow (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and New Zealand. Adabow (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it needs a rewrite to include notability criteria and relevant references to quotes in the media. This individual meets criteria 7 of WP:Notability(Academics) as he is regularly quoted in the media. After a quick google news search I found him in the Times Gazette, Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Star, ABC magazine, or the Canberra Times. JamesKH76 (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his book Visible learning has 21000 citations according to Google Scholar, his article The power of feedback 15000 citations. H@r@ld (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability criteria as an academic. AfD is not clean up. Schwede 66 16:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability criteria as an Academics. There is lots of information out there, it just requires someone to add it and reference it properly. I do note there is an article on his Visible learning, though the talk page didn't think they should be merged, I'm inclined to think they could be. Otherwise it does provide more references also.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 03:46, 17 August 2022 (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 12:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So French Records[edit]

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

This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Djjdwetherspoon (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a commercial company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited the search for French google sources, nothing turns up we can use here. Their website, facebook and photos of parties for album releases. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo Junction, Illinois[edit]

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

Non-notable railroad junction mislabeled as an unincorporated community. Newspaper coverage consists entirely of railroad-related announcements. –dlthewave ☎ 06:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 06:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete All evidence is that it's a rail junction, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2022 (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. A notable formal club, that has been shown to have SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T&T Club Motijheel[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails GNG Indianfootball98 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bangladesh Championship League as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can you redirect a team article to the league article it plays? Diptadg17 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep-[28], [29] & [30] Please have a look at these three articles. (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep- A professional club of second tier league of a country and has solo coverage in top tier national media like [31], [32], [33], [34]. Diptadg17 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep- It’s one of the famous club of Bangladesh and T&T Club played several season of Bangladesh Championship League which is 2nd tier football league of Bangladesh. P.H TARU

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 Dhaka Third Division Football League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skylark Football Club[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails GNG Indianfootball98 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhaka Third Division Football League as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per plausible search term above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2022 (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. Civil servants are not covered by WP:POLITICIAN. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. Vijay Kumar[edit]

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

Civil servant who has had a distinguished but nevertheless non notable career. The article is sourced to routine announcements of appointments, press statements and links to the organisation’s he has served. No in depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and India. Mccapra (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would seem to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN by holding various secretary of state positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN doesn’t apply to career civil servants. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting you but what's the policy backing for that claim? BrigadierG (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant policy I could find was WP:POLOUTCOMES which states "Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable.". This does not describe this individual's career - he was appointed as a minister to lead certain policies from what I can see. BrigadierG (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No the article doesn’t say he was a minister (or he would be notable). It says he was Secretary in the ministry, i.e. a senior civil servant. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps there is some geographical difference. I'm from the UK - here, secretary for state is the most senior role in a government department. But even so, WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable". It seems like he's still probably notable. BrigadierG (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is written in US-centric terms so it is describing high level public offices which are not cabinet level, so equivalent to UK junior ministers. The subject of this article is the equivalent (in the UK) of a permanent secretary, so a civil service post. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in favor of Keep here. WP:POLOUTCOMES seems to pretty clearly include cases like this as notable. Honestly, even if I was unsure I would be in favor of keeping the page. When it comes to politics, I think it’s prudent to lean inclusionist, as the more information available to the public the better. I don’t see any real advantage gained by deletion, though I do understand if others disagree with me. Yitz (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the whole point though is that this is NOT politics. This is the holder of a civil service role. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. POLITICIAN doesn't apply, as Mccapra has noted. He was appointed to various positions, not elected. As such, I only see routine announcements about those appointments and not much else. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sources that confer the notability. If the sources aren't legit I will change my view. Andre🚐 18:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is verifiable but I'm seeing nothing approaching multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. No cited assertion of significance. Like many worthy bureaucrats he lacks significant independent coverage. BusterD (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. I couldn't find reliable independent sources other than the Reuters article, which only quotes him, it's not substantively about him. 2. There does seem to be a categorical misunderstanding on the part of a number of !voters. It's pretty clear that he is the top civil servant in a government department - what was generally called the "permanent secretary" in most countries that followed British civil service systems. He is not the political head of a government department, like a minister or Secretary of State. Therefore he isn't notable based on notability for politicians. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2022 (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 00:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sheppard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is almost exclusively about his appearance on Survivor, which is not in itself evidence of notability, and nothing else that is mentioned is evidence of notability either. This belongs on a Survivor fan wiki, not Wikipedia. Chagropango (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After 3 previous AFDs that had Keep or No consensus closures, I'd like to see more well-articulated support for Deletion before deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can sympathize with the re-lister's concern and will make a considered statement for a subject which was put up at AfD thrice eight years ago and this summer thrice relisted at this deletion process after almost four weeks of appearance. 1) As of this datestamp there is nothing applied to the page approaching significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. The subject fails every SNG which might conceivably be applied. 2) This page is a creation of a locked account, blocked because of sockpuppetry. The page has been shepherded since creation by other locked, blocked sock accounts, IP accounts which also specialize in Survivor trivia and apparently, the subject themselves. 3) It is telling that even though this article has been formally listed for deletion since July 25, nobody has bothered to defend this page at this process or offered a single source in support. In fact, the last edit to the page was the nomination for deletion. To my eyes, nobody (who is still able to edit Wikipedia) wants to defend this drek. I see no reason to wait for another seven day period to elapse. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I should add this 4th AfD procedure on a subject so weakly covered in media demonstrates the importance of observing WP:RECENTISM. When considering WP:BLP1E, a reading of WP:PERSISTENCE, a guidance for events, may help us understand that when sources lack stubbornness, the subject will lack sustained coverage required for GNG. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2022 (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 11:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Sah[edit]

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

Mayor of a medium-sized city. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nepal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable Local politician and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. DIVINE (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Non-aligned: I just saw a red box on article of our mayor. I followed it to come here. I see articles on Khel Raj Pandey, Harka Raj Rai who are also mayor of sub metropolitan city which are smaller to Janakpur. Janakpur is the largest submetropolitan city in Nepal by population. It is capital of Madhesh Province. Mayor post of Janakpur is of strategic importance as it's direct elected executive post. Wikipedia has article on Dhawal Shamsher Rana who is former mayor of Nepalgunj sub-metropolitan city. It's culturally and traditionally rich. Wikipedia contains article on Sunil Prajapati, Mahadev Bajgai who are mayor of just a municipality. There are articles on Bidya Sundar Shakya, Chiri Babu Maharjan, etc then why can't there be article on Manoj Kumar Sah? So I think a mass discussion is required than having on one person!120.89.104.121 (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. This is also a G5 case but for the catch-22 situation with CUs and EWLOs. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:29, 15 August 2022 (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!} 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kadir Güntepe[edit]

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

Districts of Turkey are second-tier subdivisions, akin to counties or greater municipalities. Being in charge of one doesn't provide an WP:NPOL pass. I also submit that the crime in question isn't so significant that it merits notability in and of itself. Coverage of the crime appears to be on the level of local news, with nothing since. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and Turkey. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 05:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NPOL as stated above. The arrest itself is not particularly notable either. Turkey has arrested thousands of people for alleged affiliations with Gulen; Guntepe is just one of many victims of an authoritarian state. Curbon7 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2022 (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. This is a weak Keep but there wasn't a very strong deletion rationale provided to argue for deleting this article, just a statement of why the nominator didn't think the subject wasn't notable. The other participants disagreed with this opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gervase Peterson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources identified by Binksternet in the previous AfD are sufficient for meeting the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just gonna stick something right here.

Peterson enjoyed a lot of media attention in 2000, which established his notability. New York Daily News published a piece on him in August 2000: "Gervase the Greedy". The same month, he was featured in The New York Times and profiled in Entertainment Weekly. Of course, the book Survivor (TV Books, 2000, p. 162, ISBN 1575001438) has a few paragraphs about his life. Peterson appeared as himself on the September 2000 season premier episode of The Hughleys TV show, as reported in detail by Jet magazine. People magazine reported Peterson's appearance on Nash Bridges TV show in November 2000. Newsweek volume 135 in 2000 wrote about Peterson, reporting why he decided to appear on the show: "To prove how tough I was to myself, if I could actually hang out there on an island for 39 days." TV Guide published a story about him in 2001, volume 49, p. 195, where he is quoted saying "Winning the immunity challenges is the only way to guarantee that you're going to survive another three days and possibly win." This same quote is repeated with attribution in the 2002 book Community That Is Christian. Philadelphia magazine published a five-page story on him in 2008, also carried by Boston magazine. TV critic and journalist Eric Deggans wrote a book called Race-Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation; on pages 193–194 he talks about the strategy of Peterson, and the interplay of Peterson and Ramona Gray. Professor Vivian Zayas of Cornell wrote about the first Survivor season in "Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast", a chapter within the book The Psychology of Survivor: Leading Psychologists Take an Unauthorized Look at the Most Elaborate Psychological Experiment Ever. On pages 98–100, Zayas analyzes the "sociable and outgoing" strategy of Peterson. Peterson got more notice in 2013 when he competed again. Entertainment Weekly dedicated a story about him in December 2013. In November 2013, Peterson was featured on the Philadelphia Eagles football team official website as a celebrity fan. The Arcadia Publishing book Legendary Locals of Willingboro has one page about Peterson

. From Binksternet at the previous AfD. I suppose eight years is enough to test if standards have changed ("elevated"?), but this decision on a topic few of us lurking these pages care about certainly shouldn't happen without the most relevant facts starkly at hand. Abeg92contribs 23:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2022 (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 05:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastborn[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:NMUSICIAN. ––FormalDude talk 09:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything on Newspapers.com extended, sorry. BBQboffin (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarveshwar Narendra Bhure[edit]

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

Subject does not qualify for an article per WP:POLITICIAN and the references here appear to be routine mentions of a change of staff in a political party. A loose necktie (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are routinue coverage for a mid-level civil servant and don't passs WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2022 (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!} 06:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik (footballer, born 1989)[edit]

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

WP:NFOOTY being deprecated, simply playing football isn't enough to claim notability. I found no significant prose coverage of this guy outside of database entries. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer whose existence difficult to verify at all, and no SIGCOV is available online. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2022 (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 Himachal Football League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Techtro Swades United FC[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG Indianfootball98 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the issue to light, however, can you elaborate further on it so that we can identify and sort out the issues? Footy2000 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Himachal Football League as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2022 (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 Redirected to Six_Flags_Great_America#Spanos/Bassoul_era_(2020–present). -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Six Flags Great America shooting[edit]

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

Violates Wikipedia isn't news. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Illinois. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Way too soon to assess article against WP:EVENT, however as it is likely to be notable given its impact and coverage in a diverse range of sources, this is likely going to be a keep vote from myself. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What impact did it have, exactly? Three injuries, not even serious ones, and all the park did was close early for the day? This is a bog-standard incident of gun violence in America, the most gun-violent country in the world. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way WP:TOOSOON to begin with, clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. As I said above, this is an isolated incident with 3 injuries and no fatalities. Unless the shooter turns out to be John F. Kennedy, this is going to fall off the news cycle in about 24 hours and have zero to minimal lasting impact. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomminator. Also, not particularly notable at this current time, is it? Nythar^T^.^C 05:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional withdraw per article creator converting this into a redirect. The condition being that I'll nominate this article again if anyone reverts it. --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:43, 15 August 2022 (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. The arguments for deletion here are strong and coherent but there appears to be a clear consensus among the community for the article to be kept at this time. Waggers TALK 10:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devashish Nilosey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage. No SIGCOV sources were found before, during or after the previous AfD over a year ago and since that time SPORTBASIC has been updated to explicitly require that at least one SIGCOV source be present in the article, which this does not meet. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's still my belief that somebody playing this number of matches, representing India U19 and becoming a coach after his playing career will have GNG passing sourcing someone either offline or in non-English language sources. However it would have been nice for something more substantial to have appeared by now, hence the change to weak keep. There's no suitable redirect here as he's played/coached for a number of different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The limited coverage that has been found in English language media would seem to suggest that there should, as RF22 says, be coverage in non-English language and/or non-electronically findable sources. I remain concerned that this move in deletion trends is going to have a significant impact on athletes from places such as the Indian subcontinent and there should be some concern that as a result Wikipedia becomes whiter (and more male as it happens). If we have to look at a redirect - which would be the established consensus approach in the case of cricketers - we'd look at List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as all but three of his senior matches were for the side. With a note added, of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep extended career at top-flight domestic level and some top-flight coaching also, and per the offline arguments above Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no presumption of notability for athletes who play at a certain level, and SIGCOV sources must actually be provided (at least one must be included in the article per NSPORTS) to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. If the guidelines suggest deleting this sort of cricketer, it means the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. It was somewhat reasonable deleting cricketers who had played a handful of FC matches, but not one with such a lengthy career. St Anselm (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article but no one has offered the nominator a source that would establish WP:SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find much for "देवाशीष निलोसे", just a few announcements relaying stuff he said in his capacity as Indore Division Cricket Association secretary, e.g. here and here, or mentions in reports on cricket association elections. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cogent arguments of Rugbyfan22 and others. I think the subject meets our guidelines for WP:SPORTCRIT Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT requires a source of independent, non-routine SIGCOV be cited in the article. Which source fulfills this? JoelleJay (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument RugbyFan22 made this time and last year when the first AFD for this happened. dlthewave nominated this for deletion both times, the first time ending with 8 people saying to keep it, and no one but the nominator wanting it deleted. Kindly stop repeating the same nomination hoping for a different result. Dream Focus 05:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT was overhauled in the interim, it is perfectly reasonable to expect !voters to assess using the revised guideline, which requires a source of SIGCOV be cited in the article for subguideline-based presumptions to even apply in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2022 (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!} 02:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Hye-ok[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Asia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - over 50 caps for North Korea since 2008 ... or is it 2006 based on this reference. Given her very prolific career, and the lack of electronic media in her country, this is a WP:IAR situation, and the article should be kept. Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the fact that someone is North Korean does not exempt them from having to meet the relevant notability guidelines, and a search suggests this person does not. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually sources will be needed. But there is no rush, and we can wait a few decades or centuries until North Korean media is available publicly. If this was a borderline player on Kaesong FC then I'd agree. But a player with this history - we all know that in almost every other country we'd have no problem finding references. To pretend otherwise ignores WP:BIAS issues. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no rush, then we can wait until said sources become available to create this article. I fail to see how not having an article on a North Korean soccer player will negatively impact anything in any way. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Nfitz:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has no proper sources and the subject has no significant coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - struggling to see the point in having an article on someone for whom no evidence of significant coverage exists. If such coverage is ever found, we can always restore it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Ndriamparany[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tobisoa Njakanirina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I'm convinced stuff is out there but the best I can find is this. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 15 August 2022 (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. Somewhere between a WP:BLPDEL and a WP:G10, but I've marked it as the latter because I have no WP:AGF here. Also a regular ol' WP:A7 for those keeping score at home. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bruce Jr[edit]

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

Obviously non-encyclopedic article that is probably just a hoax. A Google search did not turn up any person by this name who appears to be the article subject. Article was PRODed earlier today but the PROD was removed by an IP who has made no edits apart from in this article. CodeTalker (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 02:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G10 Clearly this article has been created purely to disparage a teacher and contains BLP violations. Would also suggest a block for Sam Cribb/137.219.202.203 who contributed to/created the article and have only made disruptive edits outside of this including possible BLP violations on their user page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised this at AN/I. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and now. Only reason we are even at AFD is due to the removal of the CSD. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2086 lunar eclipse[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Astronomy. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list of future lunar eclipses. I have found no sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Toadspike (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:Notability. Not seeing what's particularity notable about a lunar eclipse due to occur in 60 years. Nythar^T^.^C 05:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per El Cid. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. NMasiha (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2022 (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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2086 lunar eclipse[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Astronomy. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list of future lunar eclipses. I have found no sources providing WP:SIGCOV. (Apologies for posting the same rationale four times, but these all have the exact same minimal sourcing.) Toadspike (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:Notability. Not seeing what's particularity notable about a lunar eclipse due to occur in 60 years. Nythar^T^.^C 05:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per El Cid. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per El Cid. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2022 (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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2068 lunar eclipse[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Astronomy. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list of future lunar eclipses. I have found no sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Toadspike (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:Notability. Not seeing what's particularity notable about a lunar eclipse due to occur in 40 years. Nythar^T^.^C 05:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per El Cid. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2068 lunar eclipse[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Astronomy. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list of future lunar eclipses. I have found no sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Toadspike (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:Notability. Not seeing what's particularity notable about a lunar eclipse due to occur in 40 years. Nythar^T^.^C 05:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per El Cid. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2022 (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!} 02:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerony (Musician)[edit]

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

This musician does not meet our notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSICIAN. All the references are either trivial name-check mentions, music download sites, fan-uploaded YouTube videos, primary sources (the musician's own YouTube videos), or do not mention him at all. One award that he supposedly won does not mention him at all. It does not appear that significant coverage in reliable sources exist for this musician. See source assessment table.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
musicbrainz	User submitted content	Name checks in user-submitted content website where artists can create an account	name check only (trivial coverage	✘ No
AaceHypez	? Music download site	Not a reliable source	trivial mention of his name on a music download site	✘ No
Youtube	YouTube, anyone can upload to YouTube	Not reliable, does not contribute to notability	music video	✘ No
St. Johns, Canada	City in Canada website	It's a city site, like the Chamber of Commerce	Doesn't mention the artist at all. Fake citation, no mention of award or artist.	✘ No
Ghana Classic	Music download site/blog	? not a reference	Name check only on a music download site	✘ No
Zack Nation	music download site	? not a reference	name check, music download site	✘ No
Hip Radar	? music download site	not a reference	name check only, music download site	✘ No
Zack Nation	music download site	not a reference	name check only, music download site	✘ No
You Tube	User uploaded	does not contribute to notability, not a reference	YouTube of him on his religion	✘ No
YouTube	User uploaded video	not a reference	It's a fan YouTube	✘ No
YouTube	user uploaded YouTube video	not a reference	YouTube uploaded by the artist	✘ No
Kumikasa	? ?	? ?	Fake reference for an award that he did not receive, does not mention him at all	✘ No
NYDJ Live.com	? ? Unclear if this is a music blog	? ?	name listed as a nominee	✘ No
OkayAfrica	? ?	? ?	Does not mention him at all	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Netherzone (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note:: Article is now at Gerony due to multiple confusing redirects by creator (now blocked). Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Ghana. Netherzone (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, sources are poor or even misleading, and I couldn't find anything else online. I really like the source table, though. Toadspike (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the article's creator has moved the article to new titles a couple of times in the last few hours, and it is now sitting at simply Gerony. It looks like the creator also moved it out of the Draft system inappropriately. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and clean up the redirects too (see comment above). Let's be charitable with too soon. The article is a pretty shameless attempt at promoting a rapper who is just getting started, with a biography that inflates his minor achievements in a desperate stretch for notability. As one example, he got nominated for an award at his school, and the article includes a citation to the website of a Canadian city that has the same name as the school. Nice try, but I highly doubt that an unknown rapper from Ghana has been honored by the civic leaders of St. John's, Newfoundland. His other awards are just local vanity competitions with no media notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in a few years after there is significant coverage there will be enough for an article on this musician; I agree that it may be a case of TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Doomsdayer520, when I nominated it, it was Gerony (Musician), do you think I should I add the Gerony article and Gerony (Rapper) redirect page to this AfD nom above? Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone - See Liz's comment below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, Netherzone, most admins use XFDCloser to close deletion discussions and if the decision is to Delete, the XFDCloser will also delete talk pages and any relevant redirects that point to the deleted article. So, there is no need to tag these pages for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this info Liz, I was wondering about that. I've only used XFDCloser once, maybe twice (for non-controversial closes), so this is good information to know. Netherzone (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved the article back to its original title as a page move during an AFD really confuses XFDCloser when it is time to close this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's source assessment, nothing else to add Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Insurance Direct[edit]

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

Trying very hard to not be an advert, but still failing. News/Google shows no evidence of notability or WP:CORPDEPTH. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, I am unable to find any references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, most are regurgitated PR or Primary sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 17 August 2022 (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.