< January 18	January 20 >

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 03:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad[edit]

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

This entity's page is end-to-end WP:PROMO , full of WP:WEASEL words and statements. Lacks WP:NPOV, and has used news portal articles as WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly intended as promotional, probably unsalvageable. Deb (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,

I request to restore Wikipedia page of Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad. I am aware of Mr.Hanmantrao R Gaikwad and ready to provide required information from credible source. I agree, there might be content on his wiki page which is might be promotional, So we can remove that promotional content and restore page but deleting complete page is very harsh.

Requesting to restore Mr.Hanmantrao R Gaikwad wiki page.

Few information link :

https://www.maxellfoundation.org/winner-16.html

https://www.responsible-economy.org/en/intervention-theme/speaker/17-hanmant-gaikwad Patilvivek261 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

Please find below few credible information link from media and other section regarding Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad. He is well know entrepreneur in India, Specially in Maharashtra. His company BVG India (https://www.bvgindia.com/) Prestigious in India.

I request to restore Wikipedia page of Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad. I agree, there might be content on his wiki page which is might be promotional or not supported by credible RS or might be violating Wikipedia guideline, So we can remove that content and restore page. Deleting complete page is very harsh.

Requesting to restore Mr.Hanmantrao R Gaikwad wiki page.

Few information link about

https://www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/from-housekeeping-in-pm-residence-rashtrapati-bhavan-to-mission-10-lakh-jobs/story-tGnOIHOyDF8NGEtuYIsvwJ.html

https://www.maxellfoundation.org/winner-16.html

https://www.responsible-economy.org/en/intervention-theme/speaker/17-hanmant-gaikwad

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20120917-rural-rockstars-hanmantrao-gaikwad-from-pune-759718-2012-09-08

Patilvivek261 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, the subject does not meet the notability criteria as there is a lack of substantial coverage from multiple, independent sources indicating sufficient notability to include in an Encyclopaedia. Second, the article is written in a manner is not neutral, and it does not appear that there is a way to re-write the content to make it neutral given it's entire purpose appears to be promoting the subject. Such-change47 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,

Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad is well know entrepreneur in India, Specially in Maharashtra. His company BVG India (https://www.bvgindia.com/) Prestigious in India.

I request to restore Wikipedia page of Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad. I agree, there might be content on his wiki page which is might be promotional or not supported by credible RS, So we can remove that content and restore page but deleting complete page is very harsh.

Requesting to restore Mr.Hanmantrao R Gaikwad wiki page.

Few information link about " Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad "

https://www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/from-housekeeping-in-pm-residence-rashtrapati-bhavan-to-mission-10-lakh-jobs/story-tGnOIHOyDF8NGEtuYIsvwJ.html

https://www.maxellfoundation.org/winner-16.html

https://www.responsible-economy.org/en/intervention-theme/speaker/17-hanmant-gaikwad

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20120917-rural-rockstars-hanmantrao-gaikwad-from-pune-759718-2012-09-08

https://rajbhavan-maharashtra.gov.in/en/26-12-2021-governor-presents-maharashtraachi-girishikhare-awards-to-eminent-personalities/ Patilvivek261 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is likely that sentences that do not fit into the encyclopedia will be removed.--E.Imanoff (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC) — E.Imanoff (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Elshadiman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Delete Most RS is not mentioning him directly, it's about the company. He's got a number of awards (which I am not familiar with), but his notability is not really supported by the RS. Would be good if someone in India could ascertain what the awards amount to. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,

Please find below few (RS) information link from media and other section regarding Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad. He is well know entrepreneur in India, Specially in Maharashtra. His company BVG India (https://www.bvgindia.com/) Prestigious in India.

I request to restore Wikipedia page of Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad. I agree, there might be content on his wiki page which is might be promotional or not supported by credible RS, So we can remove that content and restore page but deleting complete page is very harsh.

Requesting to restore Mr.Hanmantrao R Gaikwad wiki page.

Few information link about

https://www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/from-housekeeping-in-pm-residence-rashtrapati-bhavan-to-mission-10-lakh-jobs/story-tGnOIHOyDF8NGEtuYIsvwJ.html

https://www.maxellfoundation.org/winner-16.html

https://www.responsible-economy.org/en/intervention-theme/speaker/17-hanmant-gaikwad

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20120917-rural-rockstars-hanmantrao-gaikwad-from-pune-759718-2012-09-08 Patilvivek261 (talk) 10:50, 6 May 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 03:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alsalam University College[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and no sources, just a link for their website. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This university provides a non-specialist education and so must adhere to the guideline requiring all universities and colleges providing mainstream education to satisfy the notability guidelines or GNG (per WP:NSCHOOL). WP:ORG guidelines require significant coverage which this college does not have. No independent significant coverage indicating notability. Hence also fails GNG and so is not fit for inclusion and ought be deleted.Such-change47 (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Such-change47 since this clearly fails the notability guidelines for organizations. I doubt it would even pass GNG since there doesn't even seem to be the usual trivial name drops in schools directories or other WP:MILL coverage a lot of universities get. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 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) 16:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Harman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Gnews mainly comes up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not default notable. The sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, ambassadors are not inherently notable and the RS is too weak. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources aren't enough to showcase notability of the article and has insignificant coverage.Juggyevil (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have nothing to add. Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 14:04, 24 January 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 23:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eeva-Kristiina Forsman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Nothing in gnews. Gbooks only has 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not default notable just for holding such posts. The sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 20 January 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 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilija Isajlovski[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Gets only 1 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not default notable. The sourcing here is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 20 January 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, CSD G12. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balageru TV[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage. I was only able to locate one reliable source and have added to the page. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as COPYVIO - at least three quarters of the text is copied straight from balagerutv.com/en/about-us. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:58, 21 January 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!} 22:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1967 Whitewater State Warhawks football team[edit]

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

No indication there is anything but routine coverage of this routine collegiate sports season. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources are far beyond basic stats and transactions, feature articles on the topic are WP:NOTROUTINE. Looks like enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There might be an argument to make Wikipedia better by grouping this season with others or merging to make a conference article or something... but those are really editing issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG per the sources in the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal Routine local match coverage is not SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may not agree, but coverage like this is usually considered significant in CFB, see the similar AfD Cbl listed below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to dig through all of them, but let's just start with the first three:
[1] Routine (if detailed) play-by-play coverage of the final game of the season in a local Wisconsin paper

[2] Interview of the team's coach after a defeat

[3] A four paragraph routine match report

None of these is SIGCOV and none of these demonstrates how this is anything but WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Glancing at the titles of the rest, doesn't look like there's much different. If you disagree, then please find WP:THREE sources which do actually meet SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since several of the articles exceed the standard in WP:ROUTINE (of simply posting "sports scores") and are actually full-length feature articles, they will do nicely. WP:SIGCOV is met, given the standard there is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The articles provided clearly address the topic directly and in detail.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Routine match coverage (such as the three sources I give above) is not SIGCOV; it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. We don't have an article about every football or cricket or baseball game (even at the pro level), even if these surely attract "significant coverage", because this is an encyclopedia and not a sports database. WP:NSEASONS goes in the same direction, that this should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not routine match coverage. A few statistical factoids is not sufficient to establish that this is truly anything but an ordinary football season for an ordinary colegiate level team. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Indeed, we don't have articles on every football game. Instead, and as a matter of overall editorial judgment, the sports projects have opted instead to organize such coverage into season articles which can include discussion or notable games played in that season. Eliminating season articles such as this would reverse that editorial judgment and thus encourage the proliferation of yet more stand-alone articles on individual games. As for your default argument of characterizing multiple, in-depth sources as "routine" or "run-of-the-mill", your argument appears to boil down to "I don't like season articles on college football, no matter how well sourced they may be." This stands in stark contrast to your more relaxed view of notability when it comes to little-known (or unknown) pieces of 19th century organ music. E.g., Livre d'orgue de Montréal -- a sub-stub you created three months ago sourced only to the text of the work itself. Should GNG be applied less rigorously to music than sports? Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Doing a simple search through JSTOR (or even looking at the very first google search result, [4], or maybe you prefer a book-length treatise on this single work) would have shown you that sources exist, and notability is not based on whether the sources are in the article or not. Hence, you clearly haven't done any research to back up your dubious and insulting ad hominem that this is done out of a personal grudge. Again, we don't have individual articles on individual games based on routine match reports, even if they cover their topic significantly. We don't have "season" articles which are merely compilations of such routine local newspapers reports. I could have also cited WP:NOTNEWS. Of course, you're a stubborn inclusionist and I'm probably wasting my time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your penchant for name-calling ("stubborn inclusionsist", "close-minded", "wiki-lawyering") really don't advance your case. And if you check my AfD stats, you'd see that I vote "delete" more often than "keep" in sports AfDs (and actually initiated the AfD on the 1968 Whitewater season). In the future, consider leaving the personal comments behind. As for that organ piece, you are often fond of criticizing others for creating main-space articles without GNG-level sourcing. So I assume you'll be adding that sourcing promptly to your sub-stub? Cbl62 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I previously nominated another Whitewater season at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team. I ended up withdrawing the AfD when additional sourcing was brought to the fore. This one looks like it's heading to the same result. I continue to believe that the vast majority of lower-division seasons do not warrant season articles, but Whitewater (for whatever reasons) appears to be an exception that does attract SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources across the State of Wisconsin. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After digging further, the topic attracted abundant SIGCOV, a sampling of which has now been added to the article. I continue to believe that routine, low-level seasons should not all have stand-alone articles, but the coverage here clearly passes GNG. Also, the team won the conference championship and set new conference records for defense. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Paulmcdonald, BeanieFan11, and Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Your GNG point is pretty well refuted. You also rely on WP:NOTSTATS, and I'm at a loss to understand how that might apply. It states: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Here, there are no listings, let alone excessive listings, of unexplained statistics. Can you explain how you think NOTSTATS applies? Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A table only listing routine match results (which is what the article mostly consists of) is a blatant failure of NOTSTATS. Even the (very small amount of) accompanying prose isn't much more than a few statistical factoids. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Can you point to the specific language in WP:NOTSTATS that supports such an interpretation? "Unexplained statistics"? No. Confusing due to "reduced readability"? No. Absence of "explanatory text providing context"? No. If you're not just making stuff up, please cite the language that supports your interpretation. Cbl62 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wikilawyering based on close-minded text reading and follow the goddamn spirit of the thing. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." A mere listing of results, and a few sentences which basically reduce to statistical factoids (the won-lost record, a few statistical points, the number and name of non-notable players who were selected to the league's [similarly non-notable and entirely routine] "all-star" team), all based on databases and local newspapers, do not provide "encyclopedic value" nor are they from significant and independent sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: The quoted passage about context in no way applies to this article which has ample context. And your angry accusations of "wikilawyering" and "close-mindedness" bring to mind the old trial lawyer's adage: "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table." Cbl62 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the facts are on your side, it should be mind-boggingly simple to address it: find WP:THREE sources which explicitly demonstrate how this is not a run-of-the-mill collegiate sports season. Local newspapers, match reports, interviews, ..., don't count. US college sports are not exempt from this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline is it that says local newspapers don't count? Oh yeah, repeated efforts to make such a change have been resoundingly defeated with the exception of WP:NORG which doesn't apply here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim that this is more than a run-of-the-mill sports season, then it kinda entirely defeats your point if it wasn't noticed by anyone but local newspapers... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports database, and if the only thing that can be said about this is "it happened, here a few statistical factoids of no interest but to dedicated fans", then, yes, it fails inclusion criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for you to cite the policy or guideline on local coverage. The answer is???? 14:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a court of law. Common sense must prevail at some point. If there is nothing but coverage in local sources, then the argument that this is 'significant coverage' is self-defeating: something that is encyclopedically notable usually has more than coverage in merely local sources. College football is played every single year by thousands of teams. If this season is encyclopedia worthy, then surely it should have some outstanding characteristic and not yet be just another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stats-dump (which is what the article is right now). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this isn't a court of law. It's an AfD discussion at Wikipedia, and we have policies that guide us in these discussions. Those policies and guidelines simply do not support your position here. Since those policies and guidelines don't support your position, you instead appeal to "common sense", which is really in this case nothing more than your subjective dislike for the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have given plenty of policies and guidelines (which you choose to ignore and then interpret very legalistically), but you seem to prefer ignoring them and pointing at "significant coverage" without even bothering to address how it actually isn't significant coverage, nor the WP:NOT issue (which is independent of any notability issue). Wikipedia is not a compendium of routine, insignificant events which just so happen to be reported in local newspapers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've given plenty of personal opinions, but you have not any policies or guidelines to support your assertion that the abundant SIGCOV in the article should be disregarded because it comes from multiple newspapers throughout the State of Wisconsin (a state which, by the way, has a population larger than Ireland, New Zealand, and a hundred other countries). Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian:, it's unfair and inaccurate to state that editors have not addressed the issues you have brought up when indeed they have. It's okay to disagree with the responses--but it's not okay to say there are no responses. Let us all work to be WP:CIVIL in our disagreements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:00, Ir20 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep As several other editors have stated, the season has significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, as evidenced by the article's references. There's no provision in GNG that the coverage must be published outside of certain geographic areas, or that there can't be too many other related topics with similar levels of coverage, or any of the other arguments I've seen time and again at AfD to claim that certain sources don't count for one reason or another.

As an aside, there's a reason why Whitewater football attracts more coverage than you'd expect for a team that's now in Division III. Wisconsin is unusual in that UW-Madison is the only college in the state to play football at the DI or DII level; in most other large states, the smaller public universities also play at one of those two levels. As a result, a few of Wisconsin's public schools have had much more football success and media coverage than you'd expect for a DIII school, with Whitewater probably being the most successful of the lot. Before the NCAA split into three divisions in 1973, the Wisconsin public schools would occasionally play and even beat schools that are now in DI; Whitewater itself beat now-FBS Central Michigan in its 1966 season. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG as significant coverage is provided by several sources. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing improved significantly since nomination. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is just an essay which I would counter by pointing out Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and this article appears to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the substantial coverage in multiple independent sources clearly shows notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. Plenty of coverage here to satisfy WP:GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 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 Nomination withdrawn and article redirected. Yes, I !voted, but the redirect has already been performed. This is just a procedural close of the discussion. Star Mississippi 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veerbhumi[edit]

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

Reason: The article cites NO SOURCE at all. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 21:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 21:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - probably notable. I think the correct title would be "Veer Bhumi" as listed at Raj Ghat and associated memorials. Based on a quick Google and Google books review it appears the topic would meet GNG, but as the current article is unreferenced completely it would be better to redirect, which has as much information as this sub-stub. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Reading Beans: not sure if you had an issue in the nomination template. There's no rationale present. Star Mississippi 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake. My mistake.Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 04:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reading Beans. Redirect to Raj_Ghat_and_associated_memorials#Other_memorials_in_the_Raj_Ghat_area where it's mentioned. It has no traffic as it was just created, but reasonable search term and Veer bhumi already redirects there. Star Mississippi 16:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the tag now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reading Beans (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Which tag? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are OK with a redirect, yes you can withdraw this nomination as even @78.26 who views it as notable thinks a redirect is the better solution currently. Star Mississippi 19:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, agreed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECTED. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 06:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Star Mississippi. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 January 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!} 22:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sissy-Boy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sissy-Boy

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

This company, which uses an anti-gay/anti-trans slur as its name (possibly reclaimed?), was protected as a redirect to "Sissy", but the page has repeatedly been re-created. Most recently, the reason for this was an assertion that it would survive AfD, but the person making the assertion did not bother to nominate it to substantiate this claim. The references used in the article are broken (and looked like poor incidental mentions to begin with), there does not appear to be substantial third-party coverage establishing its notability (at least in English), and--although I know it is not dispositive--there is no Dutch page for this Dutch brand. Not every brand sold in stores is notable. Where is the "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Bueller 007 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bueller 007, if you want to take issue with a company that in 1982 indeed reclaimed that term by proudly putting it on stores and on t-shirts, I suggest you take it up with them. Also, you should consider pinging the creator instead of referring to "that person". Of course, you could have pinged me already when you redirected it, without any discussion. You could also have told me you were putting it up for deletion. And suggesting that I should have nominated my own article for deletion just so I can prove you wrong is--well, what is the word? "Ridiculous" is the word. Is this sour grapes, Bueller? Also, Keep. Plenty of coverage. Recent news added--from one of the national dailies, and from the biggest national broadcaster.
I'm wondering how carefully you read the article. It's not clothes sold in a store--it's a clothing store, with their own brand of clothes. It's forty years old. And what dead links? No, maybe no English coverage, but you should know that means nothing. No article in the Dutch wiki? Totally irrelevant--and articles on the Dutch wiki are often terrible anyway, and have no sourcing. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this looks more like an attack on a name than a serious concern about the notability of the subject. I consider emptying the article as vandalism. Did you do a proper WP:BEFORE? The Banner talk 23:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The sources were out there all the time. Now they are in the article. Nominators should not nominate an article because they do not like the name of the topic and only ask where the references are. Enwiki does not have any rules that invalidate sources in the Dutch language. The article passes WP:ORGCRIT, the nomination fails WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be fine to rename the article Termeer that has a wiki on a regional Dutch wiki-based encyclopedia. Sacha shoes, another subsidiary of Termeer has an entry at Nlwiki. As long as an intro on the parent and chapters on the subsidiaries are provided, this would he a legit approach to resolving nom's concern, further fostering quality coverage on Enwiki. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't thin the nominator's concerns were justified in the first place, and we have many articles on such brands/stores/products/subsidiaries where the main "owner" doesn't have an article. Plus, it was a takeover--Sissy-Boy started independently. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my keep. My point is that the subject is notable as is so deletion is not an option. Another organization is possible and would entail a lot of work. gidonb (talk) 12:35, 22 January 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) 16:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endgame360[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up press releases, directories and self published primary sources all of which are not considered reliable. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is not met, not even remotely. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have made much the same findings as are mentioned in the nomination statement. None of the sources in the article could be classified as in-depth, relabel and independent. The same goes for what I have found online (mostly press releases). WP:GNG/WP:COMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are listed on Inc5000, but that alone is not enough. They don't seem to have good in-depth articles and Google search brings up many of their own articles. Should someone provide better citations, things might be different. Chelokabob (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage indicating notability per WP:NORG. Such-change47 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG, lacks significant coverage. Juggyevil (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable organization that fails to satisfy NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:10, 22 January 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) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masud Rana (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable singer who doesn’t meet any criterion from WP:SINGER and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search only turns up user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICIAN and, further to that, the sourcing is hilariously poor. This article is written by Rana himself. Clear consensus at AfD that having a Spotify and YouTube account means nothing in terms of notability. WP:BEFORE showed nothing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability established JW 1961^Talk 15:40, 24 January 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. (Mistakenly relisted.) Sandstein 17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Geppert[edit]

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

Accepted via AfC back in 2012 (am not sure how its issues didn't get flagged then), would never be accepted nowadays. BLP without any cited references (already an issue in itself). Gabrielle Geppert has a successful vintage shop, but this is not sufficent to confer notability as there seems to be very little readily accessible reliable sources about her, other than advertisements/promo in guidebooks, passing mentions of visits to her shop. (Jennifer Aniston dropped in once.) I couldn't spot any articles specifically talking about the shop that might have shown that the store had published notability in itself, let alone several reliable third party articles that would have collected together to demonstrate notability. The sources listed in the article (but not cited) seem to mainly be promotional, or self-published blogs. It was created by a single-purpose editor who has made no edits outside the article, and again last year by another single-purpose editor whose 5 Wikipedia edits were all on this article. Sadly, I don't think there is sufficient notability to be found here per Wikipedia's rules. Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It does read promotional. This is another one of those articles that might have something out there that can provide notability, but doesn't as it is. I'm honestly on the fence, but the fact that it reads so promotionally makes me wonder if it should just be deleted and recreated. I was involved in a similar AFD a few weeks back and this feels similar, but with less likelihood of notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 19 January 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Sie[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Failing WP:NBASKETBALL is not grounds for deletion, the real question is whether he fails WP:GNG. Was a search for sources, preferably including in the Ivorian media, conducted before the nomination per WP:BEFORE? Alvaldi (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of sports below the top level of the sport in question, will usually be trivial and therefore fail WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is just incorrect. There are countless of athletes, basketball players or others, who receive plenty of significant coverage despite failing WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NFOOTBALL or any of the other sports-specific notability guidelines. WP:NSPORT, which WP:NBASKETBALL is a section of, clearly states in its own FAQ that failing one of the SNG's is not grounds for deletion as all subject, reglardless of whether they pass a SNG, have to pass the general notability guideline. Maybe Abraham Sie doesn't pass WP:GNG and if you would have nominated him for failing WP:GNG after being unable to find sources I might have voted delete. But not bothering to conduct a WP:BEFORE on a subject from a non-english speaking country (to prevent a WP:BIAS) who has played for his national teams and professionally in two top-tier national leagues is not good practice. Alvaldi (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding some sources, for example [5] [6] [7] [8] so I feel he meets GNG. Playing for a national team is certainly a plus. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sie is both a national team player and plays in the Basketball Africa League, which is an important and relevant league. --H-Hurry (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 19 January 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 01:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Caldwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is an autobiography and has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If the decision is to keep, significant improvements should be done, such as adding additional citations for verification and removing any unnecessary content and information. This article has been brought to XfD before. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My recommendation, in the 2009 AfD, was "delete". While I have not yet (re-assessed) sources and undertaken a more complete WP:BEFORE, a review of the edit history and content (as was at the time of nomination) highlights the same concerns raised back then. That the article still reads as overt promotion, of the type described in WP:G11. (An article created with a promotional intent and "that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements".) Guliolopez (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the article, there seems to be no reason to delete this as Edna is notable and the article contains independent references. If the article has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone close to the subject, the article can be edited to rectify this. Rillington (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO per Rillington's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article has multiple cited sources, only one of them is a reliable secondary source, the article in the Sunday Business Post - and that only mentions Mr. Caldwell in passing in the 8th paragraph. The Radio Luxembourg citation is a primary citation - Radio Luxembourg is where Mr. Caldwell worked. radio waves.fm is in fact repeating an article from the Meath Chronicle. While the article discusses Mr. Caldwell at some length (he is a native of Co. Meath), the Meath Chronicle is about as local a newspaper as you can get in Ireland, now that the Skibbereen Eagle is defunct, and certainly isn't a significant national or regional media publication. I couldn't find other sources that would improve on the sourcing of the article either. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)[edit]

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

I have great respect for the creator of this article and I understand what they are trying to accomplish, but from a purely policy and guidelines perspective, I don't see this article meeting our notability guidelines.

First, this article is a standalone list, so WP:LISTN comes into play. WP:LISTN says that "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source." It also says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Neither of these is met, which is evident by a simple search on Google and the current sourcing in the article.
Since WP:LISTN doesn't seem to be met, we can look at WP:GNG. However, a simple search shows no reliable sources covering the topic of "people who have played one NFL game". It is not something that is discussed or analyzed in news sources.
This also fails WP:NOTSTATS, as it is simply a regurgitation of a database query on Pro Football Reference and/or Pro Football Archive. This is very evident as the only sources in the article is from these two sports database sites (even though there are 170+ inline citations).

I don't doubt that there may be some extraneous benefits to this type of list, but in my opinion these benefits don't outweigh the glaring issues this topic faces when put up against WIkipedia's notability policies and guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Pro-Football-Reference.com isn't the only source in the article, a few are by Pro Football Archives, a separate website. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Fixed the nomination. Obviously, Pro Football Archive is still the same time of source: a sports database, so the argument still stands. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the argument doesn't still stand. Your point (as originally stated) was that this was just a database dump. Not true. This is a highly-curated list which will use all available information (Pro-Football-Reference, Pro Football Archives, NFL.com, and newspaper clippings) to identify those players who truly qualify as one-game players. It also provides an array of other core biographical details. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep.

First, the list is enormously useful as an alternative to deletion. One-game players, especially in the NFL's early years, did not receive the type of SIGCOV needed to support stand-alone articles. Despite this fact, many sub-stubs have proliferated about these one-game players. This list provides an alternative to deletion, with an array of core information (and references) about such players that is not found elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Second, the topic of one-game players or "cup of coffee" players (both in the NFL and other pro sports) does receive substantial attention. See, e.g., this from The New York Times. See also this analysis of the best and worst out of the 1,167 one-game NFL careers. See also here and here.
Third, WP:NOTSTATS is absolutely NOT a rationale for deletion here. NOTSTATS covers "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Here, the list is not a mere regurgitation of confusing or unexplained stats. It is a highly curated list of players with core details about their brief NFL and (where applicable) collegiate careers. It uses two separate databases (which sometimes do not agree) to identify the players who truly fit into this category.
Fourth, and while admittedly in the nature of "Other stuff exists," this list is fundamentally the same as the NHL one-gamers list that was overwhelmingly kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL (2nd nomination). Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Cbl62, I just wanted to note two things: I did not say this list couldn't be useful. But there are alternatives to Wikipedia for this type of information. And second, your New York Times article you cited is not applicable to this article, as it does not cover people who played in one NFL game between 1920 and 1929, a time when the NFL was a small-time league and employed just about anyone who could play. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article and other sources noted above don't specifically focus on one-game players of the 1920s, but they do show that one-game players are a notable topic, and as stated in WP:NLIST, "notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." NLIST also goes on to say: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This list fulfills all three of these purposes: information, navigation, and development." Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if used as redirect target There is not a basis for the BS notion of automatic notability, that people who played a mere single game are entitled to an article. Ted Richards (American football), for example, sourced only to this reference database without significant sources, should be redirected to this page instead. I would otherwise agree that it's a non-notable cross-categorization, but this makes for an ATD for completeness of such non-notable names. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Service as a redirect target is one of the purposes this list can serve. In order to deter proliferation of sub-stubs, redirects could be created for the entries on the list that do not already have stand-alone articles. E.g., John Depner. A redirect to this list can also serve as an excellent alternative to deletion for sub-stubs that have already been created. And it also serves information, navigation and development functions that are explicitly approved in NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like articles to be redirected to this list, as I personally believe many are notable and pass GNG. (If not, I must be very lucky, as the other day I randomly picked four players on this list to make an article of, Karl Thielscher, Shirley Brick, Carl Etelman, George Slagle, and got the first three into excellent shape. I also did Ching Hammill, another 1920s one-gamer, yesterday, and got it to C-class and am nominating for DYK) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect for a non-existent article serves no harm. E.g., John Depner. If and when a suitable stand-alone article (with SIGCOV) can be created (e.g., Karl Thielscher), the redirect can be converted into the stand-alone article. Similarly, if an article like Pete Vainowski is deleted (and assuming not overturned at DRV), then a redirect helps direct the reader to the most pertinent available information on the player. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, three of the players selected played college football and gained attention from that. At the other end of the spectrum are the ones whose one appearance was not as a starter and who did not play college ball. I'd venture to bet a beer round that the overwhelming majority with one game as non-starter (and without college football) would not support a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, I can guarantee the fourth one I selected (George Slagle, who didn't attend college) is notable per GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I see here is not a redirect target, but an open encouragement to create standalone articles about all these people, since they all meet the WP:NAFOOT presumption. If you check List of players who played only one game in the NHL, you will see that all the names are blue. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL (3rd nomination), Masterhatch said When I created this article many years ago, my thought was to list the players with a short career summary without the need to create an article for each one. Over the years, though, editors created articles for each player anyway. If this list is intended to decrease the number of stubs about players who meet the NSPORTS presumptions, then it's likely to backfire. JBchrch talk 19:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tellingly, Masterhatch voted "Keep", and I disagree about the perceived incentives. The relationship between the NSPORTS guidelines and GNG have changed significantly since the NHL list was created. In today's stricter environment, I strongly expect that most of the one-game NHL players from the 1920s would be deleted if brought to AfD today. Cbl62 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masterhatch's vote was on sourcing grounds. JBchrch talk 21:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the NHL list 15+ years ago, I believed that a player who only played in one game and was otherwise not notable didn't deserve his own article. I felt a list of that kind with redirects and a player summary was better than stubs of iffy articles. I still believe today that a player whose only notability is a single game played probably doesn't deserve his own article. I'd rather see that player be a redirect to an article like this. If it's the case that things are getting stricter on which sports bio articles will make the cut, we'll need lists like this as an alternative (properly sourced of course). So, I'll vote keep here as I did there. Masterhatch (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that (of the two counter-policy&guidelines options mentioned) this is the more elegant-looking and at least superficially encyclopedic-looking alternative. But I doubt it will prove to be an alternative as such: no sooner was it created than the NFL Wikiproject was discussing linking them all on the basis of their passing NGRIDIRON -- that sounds more like a to-do list and an WP:OTHERSTUFF ratchet than a manageable marginalia-mitigation measure. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@109.255.211.6: The list actually serves multiple purposes. It is a redirect receptacle for players who don't warrant stand-alones. E.g., Max Broadhurst and Heinie Schultz (new redirects from former sub-stub lacking SIGCOV) and Bill Connell, Fred Clarke (American football), John Depner, and Walt Frickey (redirects in lieu of new articles). It can simultaneously serve as a check-list to identify players that do warrant stand-alone articles. E.g. Karl Thielscher (newly created from list). Finally, it provides an informational overview (and links) for readers interested in the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Checklists" should be in project-space, not encyclopedia articles. "Overview for readers interested in the topic" presupposes that it is a topic of encyclopedic standing: which pretty clearly it's not, as pointed out by the nomination. Indeed, it's a veritable compendium of WP:NOT. So as I said in my previous comment, that leaves one "least worst" purpose: that one unencyclopedic article is less bad than several such. Except that we'll get the several too, looks like. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we "get the several too", this list facilitates a policing function. Anyone who puts this list on their watchlist will be notified when a new article is linked and can then check to see if there is SIGCOV. Also, the notability of one-game careers is evidenced by the sources I cited above and those cited by Bagumba below. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to the point I made above, a "policing function" is something that projectspace is for. It does nothing to bolster the resemblance to an encyclopedia. The given sources are classic trivial mentions, and don't come within shouting distance of "significant coverage in reliable sources". The articles on Yahoo and in the TCPP are interesting in that they speak to the one-hit wonder angle, but they only cover 17 players between them, and neither has a similar (league-wide and arbitrarily time-specific) scope to that of this article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. One of the important functions in policing such articles is to have an effective (and richly-detailed) receptacle for articles to redirect to, and we can't redirect to project space. Also, this piece (here) purportedly examined all "1,167 [who] have only appeared in one game" to compile its list of the best and worst one-game careers. Cbl62 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that source, we should discount pieces from Bleacher Report's bloggy, click-bait list creation days. Even today, we need to be careful with who their full-time paid staff writers are and the amateurs who are not.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my above reasoning. Masterhatch (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cbl62 and Masterhatch. BilCat (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62, who has sufficiently demonstrated that the purported arguments for deletion do not hold up. Regardless of the exact purpose of this article, it does not qualify to be deleted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced of the article's purpose by Cbl62. I think it would make sense to redirect articles like Pete Vainowski, rather than outright deletion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a couple of more sources tangentially related to this topic: "They played in one game for the Vikings. That was it for a career." Twin Cities Pioneer Press and "Moment of Glory: Two men started at QB in their only NFL game. Another chance eluded them both". Yahoo.com—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I appreciate all the effort that was put into the article, I do not see it meeting the notability criteria and the main reason given for keeping this article is the very reason I opposed its creation to begin with: it appears to be now used to get rid of early NFL stub articles through means of redirecting, many of which I could probably expand if given enough time. Another reason for inclusion editors here have expressed is that several one game players do get coverage, but my point is that there is only one source that even lists players from the 1920s. Yes there is the NYT article about six players--but that is about just six of them, and there are at least 1,000 (266 from this time period). Also, they do not discuss any from the era this page talks about. The only source listing all is Pro-Football-Reference.com, a database owned by Sports Reference. The other sources brought up by Cbl and Bagumba are ones by the Twin Cities Pioneer Press (discussing a single one-gamer), Bleacher Report (discussing ten of them), and Yahoo (discussing two), none of which discuss those of the 1920s, of which this AfD is about. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmmm ... interesting since you were an active participant in creating the list.~~ The dozen or so articles that have thus far been redirected here are all very short (no more than a sentence or two) sub-stubs which have zero in the way of SIGCOV -- and which have no more informational value than is provided by the list. I searched for SIGCOV for each of these and found none. If SIGCOV is brought forward, there is nothing that prevents you or anyone from reversing the redirect and re-creating stand-alone articles. Cbl62 (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With some considerably mixed feelings, delete or move to project space. By the policies and guidelines -- as cited by Gonzo_fan2007 and BeanieFan11. Its scope is contrary to WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS, and its contents rely on what are very low-quality citations: there's a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. The basis of this is wholly the WP:NGRIDIRON "presumed" notability -- which seems to be rebutted here by a lack of WP:GNG, an WP:OTHERSTUFF line of argument, and that it might be convenient for editors in various ways. Editorial convenience can be assured by copying the substance or moving entirety of this list into project space. The OTHERSTUFF argument seems especially unfortunate, as it's not merely repeating the out-of-guideline existence of ht NHL example, it's even less compliant: lack of any source (other than bleacher's very cursory reference) for a "all one-game players" scope, and then splitting it by decade, further arbitrarily. And keeping this will lead to complaints that its "not fair" to players have have played more than once but fail to pass GNG, and presumably also to a present-decade article where players will churn on and off it constantly. Having said all which... it is an undeniably more elegant and encyclopedic-looking form than endless substubs. Which strictly we shouldn't have either, but the dynamic seems to push us to having one or the other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IP user's !vote above is mostly incomprehensible, but they raise a singular good point: what about players who played 2, 3, 4, etc games but still don't fall under GNG? Why not instead of doing the list like this, it would be much more economical if you boosted toward completing Category:Lists of players by National Football League team. I note that a bunch of these older team don't have lists. It seems to me to be better to ditch this style of list into completing the team lists, and those become even better redirect targets. Curbon7 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Cbl62 to see what they think. Curbon7 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One-game players are a special class. There is special interest in (and coverage of) one-game players as such. Moreover, the 250 or so one-game players from the NFL's first decade are a particularly problematic group in terms of GNG. If someone were to devote the time to creating detailed lists on every NFL franchise, I agree that such lists could be effective redirect targets (albeit only in the case of players who only played for one team), but such lists do not currently exist. The existing lists of players by team are simple lists of names that don't provide any of the details provided here. Accordingly, they provide much less desirable redirect targets. Preparing details-rich (and individually-sourced) team-by-team lists for all 25,000-plus historic NFL players would be a monumental task. Creating such a list for just 250 players was a big task. Cbl62 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One (hopefully) final thought on the redirect point. I am a fan of American football history and have endeavored for 14 years to enhance Wikipedia's coverage of the sport. At the same time, I acknowledge that GNG-level coverage is difficult to find for many or most one-game players of the 1920s. I strongly dislike the idea of redirecting an NFL player to a team list (e.g., List of New York Giants players) that provides absolutely ZERO information about the player. Such a list is nearly useless as a meaningful redirect target. That is why I developed this list. Since many one-player games are underdeveloped sub-stubs sourced only to Pro-Football-Reference, this list provides a more enriching redirect target. Indeed, it provides essentially the same core information as could be gleaned from a sub-stub. The list endeavors simultaneously to serve the purposes of both those who seek to delete such articles (providing an effective redirect target) and those who seek to enhance our coverage of early American football players (by providing the sorts of details that would typically be laid out in a sub-stub). That's my goal. I think it's worthwhile. Hopefully, others see the value. Cbl62 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely more accurately an indeterminate positive number of good points, given its not being comprehended otherwise? (Such harsh marking.) One of which I'd (forlornly!) hoped addresses exactly this "special interest in (and coverage of)" point. No source has been offered with the same scope as this article. This is resting on an appeal to vaguely similarly scoped references: the Somewhere Someteam's two one-game quarterbacks, and so on. From that we'd have to infer that all one-gamers can be inferred to have such special interest, absent any such special coverage besides those sparse examples. Then from there we make the further arbitrary scoping decision, "we're gonna have lots and lots of these -- better chop them up by decade!" If we had a good source -- or even a couple of mediocre ones -- with this actual scope or one at all close to it, I'd be sold on this, as opposed to just semi-resigned. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This really doesn't seem to meet WP:LISTN. Ideally, the players wioch are non-notable here redirect to pages at Category:Lists of players by National Football League team, with the current information WP:PRESERVEd. However, when you have existing plain list of 100s of players, converting them to a table to retain the info involves mamually putting in a lot of repetive table formatting for columns of TBD data (WP:NODEADLINE). Can this be automated? Otheriwse, do we just WP:IAR with this current non-optimal, interim solution to improve WP by avoiding permastubs?—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 19 January 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 Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Thanks to all for your participation. Ajpolino (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no neutral academic discourse on the subject, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:NOTSCANDAL --Armatura (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Find it hard to believe nothing neutral is to be found on this. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If there is a WP:NPOV issue with neutrality and this article, the non-neutral sections should be tagged and it should be fixed. The topic is notable, the article needs to be fixed and improved, not just deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with User:Hyperbolick that it seems likely that reliable coverage can be found on this, but I am not seeing any in the article, with much of the content seeming to be included as OR or Synth, such as the section on blocking an Azeri film festival. I also note that the sections that directly discuss such sentiment are always uncited - as such, can anyone identify any sources in the article that actually deal with the topic? BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No academic consensus about institutionalized anti-Azeri sentiment in Armenia, unlike anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, which is well documented and covered by neutral sources. The sources should call the described events Anti Azerbaijanism, otherwise wikipedia editors devising such a concept is unacceptable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.166.67 (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC) - banned user. Grandmaster 20:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After checking several sources, I agree with the nominator that almost all the article seems to be WP:OR and don't disagree with WP:TNT deletion. Can be redirected to anti-Azerbaijani sentiment where this topic is already covered. I don't see the need for a spinoff article unless it's well sourced. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and buidhe. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a legitimate topic, a parallel article to Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan. The two countries are at war not because of love for each other, there is a popular sentiment that drives the conflict in both states. There is plenty of information about persecution of Azerbaijani people in Armenia and in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, and the article could be further improved with use of additional sources. There is also scholarly literature that discuses the topic and could be used in this article. For example, Stuart J. Kaufman. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Page 54. A very good source is a recent book by Laurence Broers, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry. He discusses the topic in much detail, in particular, he writes: The structural context of Soviet Armenia's Azerbaijani minority and the patterns of violence against it suggest that rather than resentment or fear, it is hatred that was the predominant emotion towards this community in the Arm SSR. These and other sources could be used to improve the article. Grandmaster 19:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may benefit from some rewriting and additional sources, but the topic itself is WP:NOTABLE, even being the subject of a World Court ruling. Other sources trace it to the beginnig of the 20th century, if not earlier. Brandmeister^talk 21:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about Anti-Azerbaijansim in the article you shared, and the issue at court was more about what Azerbajan did, which was displaying mannequins of dead Armenian soldiers in a trophy park. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link those other sources, as the Reuters source does not appear sufficient to support the existence of the article? BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the International Court of Justice orders Armenia to stop hate speech against Azerbaijanis in that country, then it is because the court found that such speech exists. They do not make such rulings without relying on facts. Grandmaster 11:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent, not stop. Getting the difference? --Armatura (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we need a reliable and independent source that tells us that; we cannot infer it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did not order to stop hate speech in Armenia, it ordered to take all necessary measures to prevent the incitement and promotion of racial hatred and in addition presiding judge Joan Donoghue said Azerbaijan must protect all persons captured in relation to the 2020 conflict who remain in detention" and must "prevent and punish acts of vandalism and desecration affecting Armenian cultural heritage Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both countries were ordered to prevent hate speech. I understand from this that the hate speech exists, therefore they were ordered to prevent it in the future. Grandmaster 10:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent, not stop. Getting the difference, Grandmaster? --Armatura (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent from happening in the future, i.e. after the provisional measures are passed. The aim of provisional measures is to take immediate measures. Grandmaster 10:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the ruling, Brandmeister, it’ll be clear that the court uses different language when addressing hatred in both countries - therapeutic for Azerbaijan (with concrete example of racial hatred like the hideous “trophy park”) and preventive for Armenia (as the court would remind any other country engaged in military action to not go down the route of developing ethnic hatred sentiment. They didn’t indicate the hatred ALREADY exists in Armenia). --Armatura (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the court ruling did not concern the trophy park. The court did not support the demand of Armenia that the park is closed, but it took into consideration that the mannequins were removed. But there was no ruling concerning the trophy park itself. Grandmaster 11:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where else were Mannequins displayed except for the trophy park? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the court mentioned the trophy park and this many times. Specially point number 93 is interesting. Azerbaijan themselves mentioned the Mannequins and helmets displayed in the Trophy Park and the Court takes notice of their announced removal. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional measures make no mention of the trophy park. The court took into consideration the removal of mannequins, and that was all (point 93). No specific ruling in this regard. As for Armenia, the provisional measures say: The Republic of Armenia shall, in accordance with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, take all necessary measures to prevent the incitement and promotion of racial hatred, including by organizations and private persons in its territory, targeted at persons of Azerbaijani national or ethnic origin. Grandmaster 10:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you indicate where the court calls for something like this from Armenia? The provisional measurements are based (for these reasons) on the conclusion mentioned from point 89 downwards which includes the mentions of the helmets and mannequins in the trophy park. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 measures against Azerbaijan, i.e. protect prisoners and monuments and stop hate speech. Park is not among the measures. Since offending items are removed, the problem is solved (at least for the court). The measures should be the same for both countries, but Armenia does not have any more detainees (Azerbaijan has a group of detainees captured after the war), and Armenia has no control over Azerbaijani monuments anymore after 2020 war. Whatever Azerbaijani monuments were in the occupied territories have been destroyed, and it will be the subject for further proceedings by the court, but since Armenia does not control those territories anymore, the court cannot order Armenia to take protective measures. Otherwise, both countries are ordered to prevent hate speech. Grandmaster 10:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is matter of interpretation of the verdict and you didn't answer my question which was: Could you indicate where the court calls for something like this from Armenia? But I guess this is actually for another talk page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment per TNT. Nobody has been able to demonstrate that there are any relevant citations in the article, and while I believe that relevant citations probably exist, until we can find them we cannot have an article - and if we can find them, we can put them in the parent article and split the section out when appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Deathlibrarian, tag the sections with NPOV tag if you believe it has npov issue. I see several good English sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow4dark: Could you link a few of those, as I have been unable to find them? BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources that i found is books of Svante Cornell Shadow4dark (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict" doesn't appear to include any mention of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, and while "Azerbaijan since independence" does, it is limited to half a paragraph that doesn't support much more than the statement that "after the events at Chardakli, anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia grew" - this warrants mention in Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, but I don't believe it is sufficient to support a stand-alone article. I also note that the current line doesn't match the source; the source says this rise in sentiment occurred prior to the first war, while our article says it happened after the first war.

On a side note, Svante Cornell has been criticized for being pro-Azerbaijan, which weakens our ability to create an article that is heavily sourced to his works. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment as common for other pages on such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per User: BilledMammal. I don't think WP:TNT is needed, but I agree with the inclination that buildup should happen in the Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment article. A note: the quick scholarly source review I did uncovered primarily passing mentions; based on what I saw, I would be hard-pressed to write an article on the subject without WP:SYNTH. Suriname0 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 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 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results. Ajpolino (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Youth of Macau[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006, never won any seats that I can see, no WP:SIGCOV that I can see. Searching the Chinese name brings up a lot of false positive hits. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the New Youth of Macau (Chinese: 澳門新青年; Portuguese: Nova Juventude de Macau) is mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This 2005 Macanese legislative election document confirms that the New Youth of Macau received 263 votes, which is 2.02% of the vote total, in that election. I did not find evidence that the New Youth of Macau participated in other elections. If they did, an alternative redirect target is List of political parties in Macau which could discuss all the elections the group participated in.
Cunard (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect as nom - "New youth of Macau" is not a likely search term, and anyone searching it is just as likely to be looking for stories about modern-day Macanese young people than this party that stood for election once, got very few votes, and disappeared without making any demonstrable impact. Edit history is always preserved and if sources can be found then the article can be refunded or recreated using those sources, but in this case none of the edits would actually be useful to a future editor who has found such sources. Accept that a redirect is still better than leaving up this completely unreferenced article though. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support a redirect per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion because besides disambiguation pages, "New Youth of Macau" is mentioned in only 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results and List of political parties in Macau. The mention in 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results has more details: how the political party performed in that legislative election and what its Chinese and Portuguese names are. This makes the election page the best place for this title to point to. I did a Google Search for "New Youth of Macau" and did not find the term used outside of the context of this political party. The edit history is useful because it contains information about the political party which can be helpful for searching for sources. Once the history is deleted, a non-admin editor needs to ask an admin to undelete it to see the contents. I would prefer to retain the history so that there is no friction to obtaining the article contents. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cunard. I don't think that maintaining the article history is particularly important as it seems like the party is not notable and the current article is not in a state such that it would not able to be restarted if the party becomes notable later on, but it does seem like a good ATD and a way for people to learn about the party without them having their own article. TartarTorte 20:25, 19 January 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) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chael[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was AfDed in 2019, and deleted per WP:BIO1E. Nothing suggests that Chael has gained sufficient notability in the intervening 3 years for the page to warrant recreation yet. PianoDan (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Some high cites on GS, but with vast author lists it is impossible to see the individual contribution. First AfD got it right. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON. Subject was included in the middle of a long list of coauthors of some well-cited papers, but I don't think that contributes much to notability, and I don't see much else (apart from one passing mention in Astronomy). Consider salting, as this is the second go around, and the notability case is not close at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes his status clear He is highly decorated within the Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, being the only member to win both the Outstanding PhD Thesis and Early Career Awards. In other words, just beginning. Early career awards if nothing follows later, are evidence of non-notability. As Xxanthippi says, for this field & others with similar patterns of authorship, citations are of little help,. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does have a couple of >100-citation papers on which he was first author ("Interferometric imaging directly with closure phases and closure amplitudes", 109 and "High-resolution linear polarimetric imaging for the event horizon telescope", 147) but as a 2019 PhD and current postdoc I would need to see much stronger evidence than that of significant independent scholarly impact to overcome WP:TOOSOON. The repeated re-creation (and wording of the article) suggests a problematic level of promotionalism which does not incline me to be lenient. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as media coverage goes, the situation has not significantly changed since the last go-around. He's been quoted a little since then about EHT work, for example here, but that's typical. I concur with the concerns raised above regarding his citation profile: being in the middle of a long list of coauthors is not a sign of individual noteworthiness, and there doesn't yet seem enough beyond that. The promotional tone may be a consequence of a novice editor whose mind has been poisoned by keynote-speaker bio blurbs and so thinks that biographies should sound like that. XOR'easter (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A junior postdoc who fails WP:PROF. They've made a promising start to their research career but that isn't enough to meet our notability criteria. Alerting @Will (Wiki Ed): to this discussion, as they seem to have overseen the creation of this article by a novice editor as part of a WMF education programme. Modest Genius ^talk 18:35, 24 January 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 merge to Autocross. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British autocross[edit]

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

Synthesis of ideas; autocross in the UK does not seem substantially different than anywhere else. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did NOT deprod without comment... I ask that you strike this claim. If you read what I wrote, I said it should be discussed and possibly merged [9]. I wasn't going to put an entire essay in the edit summary! A7V2 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Autocross. Not sure where you get the idea that it is "not substantially different than anywhere else"? Clearly it is completely different to the European variety. In any case, it doesn't appear notable enough for a standalone article, and the Autocross article is far from long enough to require splitting. A7V2 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Autocross – I agree with AV72. It certainly isn't notable enough as variant of the sport to have its own article, but it's enough to deserve some distinct coverage, which can be done at the main article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Autocross - Content can be used to expand the article on parent subject. Trout nominator for not seeing A7V2's comment when deprodding. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Autocross. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Autocross Juggyevil (talk) 20:44, 22 January 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 withdrawn by nominator. 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Cain Award[edit]

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

Not an actual award, in the same way that Bad Sex in Fiction Award is, but a community on Reddit. If the article is to be kept, it should be about the subreddit. As for the news coverage, I don't see how it passes WP:SUSTAINED, as it's all within a month of each other, this is in contrast to for instance r/The_Donald, which had coverage spanning multiple years. The article should be redirected to Controversial_Reddit_communities#HermanCainAward, which is the appropriate place to cover it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as this is clearly going nowhere fast. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to its coverage by multiple mainstream RS. I'm torn on how to frame it though (subreddit or meme). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the sources cited in the article are all from Sept-Oct 2021, it's not hard to find more recent coverage with a simple Google News search. I agree that the prose, categories, and possibly the title should be tweaked to make the subreddit the central topic rather than the "award". Colin M (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvergreenFir. Normally content that derives from an unreliable source like Reddit is treated as from an unreliable source (IOW we don't create an article), but the fact that multiple RS have covered it, and that it therefore passes GNG, means we keep this. In fact, our "purpose" here requires it be done. Wikipedia's "purpose" is to document the "sum total of human knowledge", as long as it is mentioned in RS. Any problems with the article should be fixed and are no excuse for deletion. -- Valjean (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I set up this article and posted reasons for doing so at Talk:Herman_Cain_Award#About_this_page. The strongest reason for keeping is that this article meets WP:GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bingo! That is the ONLY reason necessary for not supporting an AfD. When approaching an AfD, editors should ask themselves ONE question: Does this pass GNG? If so, !vote Keep. All other concerns about an article are covered by WP:PRESERVE. Fixing and improving, not deleting, is how we roll here, and bogus AfDs violate our purpose here, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge." Editors who create AfDs for articles that pass GNG should be trouted for undermining the very reason Wikipedia was created. If they do it repeatedly, they need a topic ban against creating AfDs. Bluerasberry should be commended for creating this article. -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned in the article talk page. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I take the WP:SUSTAINED concern to heart, but I tend to think that an Internet thing that's covered for more than a month and keeps getting mentioned [10] probably clears that bar. We're not talking about a three-day sensation. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons listed above. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 15:32, 21 January 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 merge to Pack (canine). Sandstein 09:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment behaviour in wolves[edit]

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

This article has an overlapping topic with Pack (canine) and is less well written overall. I propose merging some of its high-level content into Pack (canine), deleting the content that just echos data in cited works, and redirecting links as appropriate (though as far as I can tell, only two other articles ever linked here). Rriegs (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Rriegs (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Rriegs (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - merge + delete wouldn't be consistent with the CC license. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean @Guettarda:?

Merge per above. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the nom. The current article is more essay-like than encyclopedic. It would also help to flesh out the main article.BuySomeApples (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:33, 27 January 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) 16:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zein (Journalist)[edit]

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

This journalist does not meet criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:JOURNALIST. It seems like there is a lot of sourcing in the article, but it's all paid PR advertising, with several bylines to "Two Media"; or that clearly states it's an "AD" - native advertising. In a BEFORE search, I found a lot on an athlete named Ali Zein, but that's the wrong person. I don't read Arabic, so I'm bringing it here for feedback from the community, hoping that any fluent editors will weigh in. If decent sources can be found, the nom can be withdrawn. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tone of this article seems to be promotional, it also does not meet the criteria WP:GNG.--Tysska (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable person. Searching for his digital marketing agency Keemya shows little results apart from some organic products which are unrelated. Sahaib (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is vanity spam bordering on a hoax and great exaggerated at best. SANTADICAE🎅 19:13, 20 January 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 03:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharicom Medical[edit]

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

Failed a WP:BEFORE I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is little to any news on the company. The few sources that do exist fall well short of WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the current format it does not present any notability for wikipedia, likewise I did not find sources that could help keep the article.--Tysska (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to add over and above existing comments. Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 14:07, 24 January 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 Kikac Music. Unopposed. Sandstein 09:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uhujimfura Jean Claude[edit]

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

Sources mention him, but aren't about him; they are about his company and the talent show organised by them. I thus redirected this page to the company Kikac Music, but was reverted by the article creator. Suggest redirecting again. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fram (talk), Redirecting is good but it is better if you let me look for appropriate references, I am going to improve this article thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proyezu (talk • contribs) 10:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 26 January 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!} 05:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Sarrazain[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no reliable coverage Pridemanty (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the article's expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article consist of two interviews and one summary profile. The latter is the source credited for the great majority of the article and in La Dépêche du Midi, a major news source generally considered RS. One RS and two interviews, however, are not enough to demonstrate compliance with the GNG or any applicable SNG. Looking for further coverage does not disclose any other sources that would meaningfully change this assessment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 24 January 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 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Devi Dasi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All ISKCON members are not notable. Lack of major work or post held. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Promotional bio based on self published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2010 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No evidence of notability was provided. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami) Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What has changed since the previous three AfDs? I'm leaning towards agreeing that she lacks notability but I think you need to show how this is different to previous nominations. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Can't find any other sources with WP:SIGCOV - SUN EYE 1 03:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What has changed since the previous nominations is that we've become a little more objective about promotional articles for authors. If she hadwritten a major textbook series used world-wide or even nationally she might be notable, but it's designed especially for ISKON and probably only used there. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 24 January 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 International Society for Krishna Consciousness. That article already mentions the college per Chisick Chap's suggestion. I see a relist notice was recently posted here, but in my opinion three weeks is enough. The article can always be revived from redirect should appropriate sources ever be found. Ajpolino (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta College[edit]

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

Promotional article about a religious school with no third party sources. Fails WP:NORG. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT/MERGE to ISKCON, where it will become one short sentence to say ISKCON has a facility in the Ardennes; for this a primary source is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:10, 26 January 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!} 05:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tosamaganga High School[edit]

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

The only reference in the article is about a battle that took place in Tosamaganga and has nothing to do with the school. Outside of that, a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing except for a few trivial name drops in articles about students of the school and a couple of school directories, nothing that would work for notability though, and secondary schools aren't inherently notable. That said maybe someone can find references that I missed. AS I'm not an expert on Tanzanian sources. Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 5 January 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 14:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage to be found. PROD was contested on depreciated WP:NSCHOOL grounds which no longer apply. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 19 January 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) 16:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Virgin[edit]

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

I proposed this article because "No evidence of notability. The single source is an extremely inclusive list of people with very short, stenographic "biographies", and hardly an indication of notability (looking at other entries, I see a lot of "apothecary", "reserve lieutenant", "veterinary", "engineer", ...)." The Prod was removed with the addition of "more references and an entire document about his biography that should establish a form of notability". However, these sources are:

A biography of his father, which just mentions Ivar as his son. Worse, the source for that document is ... Swedish Wikipedia. So an unreliable source which isn't about Ivar.
A book which mentions Ivar on one line as a sub-lieutenant, with about 30 superiors in that regiment alone.

As further reading is added a magazine from what looks to be a veterans association for a batallion, describing one of their former chefs. This is not an independent source but an organisation describing their own history, just like many company, club, ... member magazines do.

All in all, there isn't enough here to establish notability. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So an unreliable source which isn't about Ivar There are other sources that mention that they are related with a quick search. As further reading is added a magazine from what looks to be a veterans association for a batallion, describing one of their former chefs. This is not an independent source but an organisation describing their own history, just like many company, club, ... member magazines do. Many biography articles that are currently in mainspace currently are referenced by "non independent sources". Can you also define what that means by your standards. Primary sources are also more reliable in this specific context per WP:RSPRIMARY. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For WP:GNG notability, you need sources that are independent and reliable (other, e.g. primary, sources can be used in articles in addition, but those can't be used to establish notability). That we probably have many articles which fail this requirement is a problem with those articles, but not a reason to let this one remain as well. Fram (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we're applying secondary sources, then at least 3 references within the current revision that aren't officially from the state and are from different parties. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER & I see no other claim of notability. It should be noted thet there are sources which are good for confirming information but which do not serve to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Fram, you nominated this article like 5 minutes after it was created... what's the rush? And why not just move it to draft and have the author continue to work on it? - wolf 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four hours, actually. And draftifying is not intended for subjects which aren't notable. Fram (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no demonstration of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOLDIER is no longer used. Saftgurka (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That... makes no sense at all. Fram (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also makes no sense at all refering to it as TheLongTone did, as it "is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people". Saftgurka (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but they added "and I see no other claim of notability". The AfD nomination itself also doesn't mention NSOLDIER. So "keep" because some page which wasn't the reason for deletion in the first place is no longer valid, makes no sense. Fram (talk) 10:49, 26 January 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 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2000–01 UE Lleida season[edit]

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

No indication of the significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Sakiv (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suspect that a WP:BEFORE would have yielded lots. The language in question would be Catalan or Spanish. UE Lleida played in a pro league and the season was noteworthy in that they went from almost-promotion to La Liga, to relegation in 2000–01. The chance of this season not being written about, I would rate around 1%. Is the nominator confusing with the 2001–02 UE Lleida season when Lleida played on the third tier? Geschichte (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I don't confuse this article with the 2001–02 article. In short, this article is in a very poor state. Your first argument is inaccurate. The team never got close to promotion.--Sakiv (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I think that is referring to the quick change from 1999–2000 Segunda División which was very close to promotion, while 2000–01 Segunda División was a total collapse and relegation at the bottom of the table. Crowsus (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, only 3 points from promotion in June 2000, then relegated a year later. Geschichte (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete - yes this was from when the club was in a fully-pro league, so should meet NSEASONS, but where are the sources? Giant Snowman 20:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the links? Readers shouldn't really need to go to a template (which isn't visible on all mobile views) to get something as basic as the league division article for that season - and I've just seen that only got added today. It can be rescued with sources IMO but will any effort be made in that regard, as none was made in its first decade+ of existence? Crowsus (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I'm not well versed in finding WP:SIGCOV for seasons, per nom this subject appears to be lacking. For @Geschichte:'s comment and in light of WP:GF, I think we can presume nom completed a WP:BEFORE and ultimately didn't find any relevant material, which was the same result I had. For @Sakiv:'s response as well as a later comment by @Crowsus:, the current state of the article doesn't matter per WP:PERFECTION as it can always improve over time. The major issue for me, as nom originally put and echoed by @GiantSnowman: is that the article currently fails GNG since no one can find sources even though there are assumptions they should exist. Until they're found, if they're ever found, I must lean delete. GauchoDude (talk) 13:06, 21 January 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. Deleted by admin per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forms.app[edit]

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

Lacks significant, independent, in depth coverage to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Mvqr (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only that, but I have a feeling they have a Conflict of Interest as well, as their name and article created by them are very similar. I'm not exactly sure how a Conflict of Interest works though, but I've read about it and I think that might be what's happening here too. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:39, 19 January 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. Sandstein 13:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nejc Klavžar[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets neither GNG nor our inclusion guidelines for baksetball players. to justify keeping the article he would in most cases have to meet both those guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: No, in all cases he would just have to pass GNG. Passing GNG and failing a sport-specific notability guideline is not and has never been grounds for deletion of an article. On the other hand, failing GNG but passing a sport-specific notability guideline is grounds for deletion of an article. All this is made very clear in WP:NSPORTS. Alvaldi (talk) 19:33, 22 January 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 12:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bogged Finance[edit]

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

Very few independent sources, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The project has received significant coverage[External Link] Coindesk (w/ Yahoo Finance), Cointelegraph both reputable and large news sources have covered the project, with 443 exact mentions of the project in news sources according to Google News the vast majority of which are are organic. It has also been used as a source of information for other cryptocurrency projects on sites like Vice.

Additionally, the project processes a quarter of a billion dollars of transactions monthly, and has ~2 million monthly users. For comparison Venmo had about 2x transaction volume when it had an article added to wikipedia in 2015. source: File:Pay_with_venmo.png. I also want to note Wikipedia:Obscure_does_not_mean_not_notable, I understand Cryptocurrency projects are obscure to many editors but they do have huge numbers of users which brings coverage and notability. I do want to make clear my COI as I am involved in the project. L32007 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide actual reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Saying it has a lot of Google hits is not proving notability, see WP:GHITS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I was listing the number of news articles mentioning the project, not GHITS.L32007 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to a Google news search. It does not provide evidence of reliable, independent, secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:NCRYPTO, crypto-centric news organizations cannot be used to establish notability. BilledMammal (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. L32007 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources in the current revision appear to meet WP:RS. I looked and could not find any better sources. As with many cryptos, the huge glut of unreliable crypto outlets makes it difficult to find sources, but in this case, I do not see any indication that better sources are being overlooked. Coindesk and CoinTelegraph aren't the worst sources in crypto, but neither is actually good. If that's the best that can be found, the article is not ready for mainspace. There was a passing mention in the caption of a photo on the article "Congressman's Comment on Volatile Shitcoins Spawns Volatile Shitcoins" from Vice. That's just about it, and that's not nearly enough. Grayfell (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Per WP:NCRYPTO, crypto news sites are not independent. - MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above comment about the inappropriateness of the available sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 14:06, 24 January 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winged monkeys[edit]

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

Delete There is significant plagiarism. The article is original research. The article mostly unsourced. The very few reliable sources are not reliable - just a collection of cartoon videos and personal blogs. This is a trivia collection about a character in the Wizard of Oz - belongs in fan club movie trivia book. The subject is adequately covered in other Wikipeda articles:

Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 11 January 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 January 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator, please provide proof of the plagiarism you see in the article; it is up to you to research if a topic is notable before bringing it to AfD, and nobody can remove that material if it isn't pointed out or compared. It should also be noted that the original work it was in is in the public domain, so anything from that work can be used without any issue in regards to copyright. The article could do with reduction, but is certainly not a deletion candidate. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend evaluating the article based on its content. It is a description of a subplot in a book and subsequent movie. No context. No reliable source reporting on it. Nothing more.

While it does come up with +80% plagiarism. Based on the comment below, that does not support deletion. Wiki-psyc (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If using the Earwig copyvio report the long history of this article makes me think the other sites are likely mirrors of Wikipedia and not vice versa. — 2pou (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly seems possible. Thanks. Wiki-psyc (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. ~~While it is not implausible the topic is notable (WP:GNG),~~ the current article is half plot summary, half OR about similar concepts elsewhere. Classic old Wikipedia style, where people wrote what they thought they knew/was relevant and nobody gave a damn about any sourcing or WP:OR. PS. I did find a decent source for a rewrite [11], but I am still very concerned with OR in the article and still think TNT is the right thing here, with no prejudice for writing something on the ashes of this mess. Ping User:Daranios, User:Jclemens, User:BOZ, maybe one of you'd like a stab at rewriting this? Additional sources: [12], [13], [14], [15]... (ok, some of these are not SIGCOV, but even 1-2 sentences of analysis combined together do show the topic has some reception and in conclusion, I believe this is a notable topic, but the current article is beyond redemption). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New RS now added.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian Playing the devils' advocate, have you looked at the sources I found? Particularly the first one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did, most of the articles are talking about individual flying monkeys in a certain context. There's very little overall commentary on the concept. Piecing together an article from discussions about indiviual flying monkeys is OR. I actually like this article, and I do think this could be a good article, it just needs more discussion on the concept - I';ll have a look and see if I can see anything Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, perhaps it also warrants a rename to "flying monkey" as the correct common name. I find myself agreeing with 2pou's point and am unconvinced by the nominator's assertion that there is plagiarism involved, although I can see rampant original research and poor use of cited sources all over the article. While the term did originate as a fictional character concept, I discovered sometime ago that it has somehow found a renewed use in discussions about narcissistic abuse in popular psychology as "flying monkey". See for example:
Are You a Narcissist’s Flying Monkey? from Psychology Today
analysis/+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my Flying Monkeys in a Corporate Environment: A Qualitative Analysis from The International Journal of Indian Psychȯlogy
A Masters thesis titled Under the skin of narcissistic kin: A thematic enquiry into the use of online blogs by adult children of perceived narcissists

I'd say "TNT" where over 90% of the questionable content being blanked and removed from the page is warranted, but the topic itself is notable and should not be deleted from mainspace.Haleth (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article entitled "Flying monkeys" was deleted in the last month or so. That article was based, in part, on the Psychology Today blog listed by Haleth (thanks for the link). The "Masters thesis" listed above a compilation of ideas taken from individual blogs and speaks about Flying Monkeys in connection with an Internet forums. Just information... Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the relevance to this discussion, unless the motive is to poison the well. The AFD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (popular psychology). That article was about a concept in psychology, not the fictional characters so has no bearing on the outcome here. Why didn't you mention that the article had previously been kept at an earlier AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (psychology)? SpinningSpark 13:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assume good faith. Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS and not really notable. As an aside, they are called "winged monkeys" by Baum in the books, not "flying monkeys". As noted above, the pop psych article on flying monkeys was deleted as unsupported by RS, so that doesn't allow this article to be bootstrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banks Irk (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are lots of articles discussing "flying monkeys" I did a search on ebsco, there is a stack of them, more than on this page - *however* they are all talking about individual situations of them. There really isn't an article that discusses the concept as a whole. So it is suprising there isn't an article, *and there really should be* - there just isn't any RS that discusses the concept. You can write up individual depictions of flying monkeys, and reference those, but putting them into an article together is OR. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known characters in a notable franchise. AFD is not cleanup and this is not an article in a state that needs TNT. SpinningSpark 19:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As for notability, Religion and its Monsters discusses the Oz monkeys in detail over at least five pages.
- Monsters and Villains of the Movies and Literature devotes two pages it.
- In "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism" Littlefield argues that Baum wrote Oz with an undertone of satire on political issues of the day. He identifies the flying monkeys as an analogy for Native Americans.
- Non-trivial coverage in "The Mythology of Oz: An interpretation
- "Pay No Attention to That Man: Government Crimes in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", another scholar makes comparisons to Native Americans.
- As does "The use and symbolism of animals in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in almost a page of coverage.
- "A working theory of metaphor", non-trivial coverage. SpinningSpark 19:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC) – 15:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spinningspark has found some good sources which demonstrate notability. These are iconic villains in one of the most famous films ever made. The article requires some cleanup, but it is warranted. Thriley (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims made by editors like @Mrschimpf:, @Haleth:, @Spinningspark:, and @Thriley:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as enough sources have been found to demonstrate notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 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!} 05:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

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

DELETE or make into DISAMBIGUATION This is all original work and the personal of the primary author (as explained by the primary author on the talk page see Talk:Criticism#"Sophomoric").

The article has never had its primary theme "sourced" since its inception as a stub. The few sources that have been added over the years do not support the primary theme in this article as they are the ideas of the author. This article appears as the top reference for "Criticism" on Google, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. The author is not available (permanent ban) to help source the unsourced material. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:51, 11 January 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 January 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to forget that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so whether the 'original author' is permabanned, died, or has experienced alien abduction... it's not their article, but the community's, and once they click 'Publish', it can be refactored in any manner. We don't care who wrote it, it can easily be improved, and the nom hasn't done anything outside a bizarre redirect to Critique, which is a completely different topic and discipline. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a unsourced unconventional personal essay (66% written by one editor) that has not improved in 18 years. If that seems acceptable you, vote "keep". But to be clear, this is not the place to take cheap shots at an editor who, in good faith, brought this matter here for review. Please stay in bounds. Wiki-psyc (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment was not intended as a 'cheap shot', but as a reminder that no article is WP:OWNED by anyone here. You're required to do WP:BEFORE during the nomination process, and all I'm seeing is you attacking an editor in bad faith who wasn't blocked for any of their contributions to this article, but other issues well outside of it, and even stated in a post in their own words they know they don't own an article written here. As in any page in the WP: space, you must conduct yourself properly and can be questioned for your previous behavior within the article you nominate. As I've said in other discussions; if you have the time to delete, you have the time to contribute. And finally, we don't have any control over how search engines index Wikipedia pages; they will often index the wrong version of an article, and we don't delete articles based on how a topic plays with Google SEO. Nate • (chatter) 05:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer to use this bandwidth to evaluate the article. The content does not appear credible to me. It is a large (49,696 bytes), 18 year old article with no reliable sources, no proof, no tracing of the content to determine that any of it is valid. That is the crux of it. It is a secondary issue that the primary contributor said that is was his original work. But if that is the basis of 66% of the article it further supports questioning the the validity of the content. All this seems reasonable. I hope something constructive comes out of this discussion for the future of this article. I question whether "stay the course" is the best decision given that state of the article and its history, but I am open to hear what others would suggest. I looked into reworking the article and I just don't see much that can be done with it (my opinion). Wiki-psyc (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this article can be fixed by normal editing, per WP:BEFORE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, the article could be fixed, but it would need to be scrubbed down to a stub. Almost none of it is salvageable and that hasn't changed much in 18 years. It has been tagged for over a decade and hasn't been fixed. Is there a reason? Is it possibly because this is a overly broad and diverse topic that is better dealt with in the over 100 articles on criticism already on Wikipedia. Would it be better to make this an organized disambiguation to direct readers to the more focused work? Certainly, it at at some point someone wanted to start over then could convert the disambiguation page. Just some thoughts to keep everyone open minded. Your point is valid. Wiki-psyc (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a fallacy that merely because an article has quality issues (which this absolutely does) that it needs to be deleted. I believe the article can be improved with editing and see no valid reason for deletion. This will be put on my list of articles to improve also. Such-change47 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You make a valid point - quality should not be the only issue. How we got here is when I concluded that the encyclopedic elements of Criticism and Critique were the same and pointed one to the other. In our article on Critique it says that it is hard to make a distinction between Criticism and Critique. And if you read both, they essentially cover that same topic area. In hindsight, it probably would have made more sense to point Critique to Criticism but I was biased by the poor article quality of the latter. If we look at something like the scholarly articles from The Continuum Encyclopedia of Modern Criticism and Theory, it would make sense that the umbrella article be named Criticism (and noted as "also known as Critique"). That is just a suggestion if you do take this on as an overhaul. Thanks for your helpful comments. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:IAR, and WP:5P#1. This is an irretrievable mess of WP:OR. Of course the topic is notable, and of course sources can be found, but this grab bag of dubious statements and personal opinion should be cleared away so someone can write an encyclopedia article about the topic. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not nominating it for WP:GA status anytime soon, but surely this article isn't so bad as to be a candidate for WP:TNT. I don't think anyone is disputing the notability or article worthiness of the topic. The normal editing process should be fine for this article. Fieari (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss in more detail: Are this article's WP:OR issues so severe that WP:TNT is warranted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix, even if that means reducing to a stub. There ought to be some kind of content at this title, and I don't think the proposal to turn it into a disambiguation page is viable; our guidelines on broad-concept articles specifically recommend against this. So yes, WP:TNT, but not by actual deletion, just by removing the problematic content. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:38, 19 January 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 (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masud Khan (Musician)[edit]

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

Borderline WP:A7, but does have some claim of importance. It's an autobiography about a musician turned entrepreneur who meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICIAN. Almost all of the coverage is based on interviews or information from the subject himself. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an autobiography and the user has had drafts rejected on it before. Not sure what the protocol is there (still learning), but probably merge with Draft:Masud Khan (musician)? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 January 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 merge to Hayden, Arizona. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of abandoned properties in Hayden, Arizona[edit]

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

WP:CFORK of Hayden, Arizona, created because "The contents on the article: Hayden, Arizona was written by me and a certain user has continued to remove some of it. " (quoted from the talk page). To be more precise, the contents were removed repeatedly by two different editors, and instead of trying to discuss this at the talk page (or using dispute resolution), the creator decided to make this separate article to be able to show their pictures anyway. No reason to have a separate article for this, this belongs in the main article on Hayden, or doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. Fram (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-As I stated before the article should not be deleted because the content in the Hayden, Arizona article was originally written by me. I have tried to include some of my images there, however a certain editor continued to remove them. That is why I wrote this article and used the information which I had created in the first place. he article is about how a prosperous mining town is becoming a "Ghost town" in modern times and the images that I took and added serve to proof my point. Thank you.Tony the Marine (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to Hayden, Arizona. Creating a second article isn't the way to fix a content dispute, otherwise we'd have three versions of every article in WP. But I'm not impressed at the cooperativity going on at Hayden, Arizona; Magnolia677, Marine 69-71, BlueSingularity it would be most helpful if could all use the talk page rather than revert one another with gnomic edit-summaries. It might be possible to find a compromise solution between an inappropriate large gallery of images, and complete removal of a relevant section on the economic decline. Elemimele (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to where it was taken from, no need to split it off to a separate article, it all fits nicely there. Dream Focus 14:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant prose that is not redundant into Hayden, Arizona but without the images. WP is not a forum to post ones own photos. Galleries belong on commons. MB 14:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant text. The section I deleted about the economic decline was mostly a duplicate of text already in the article. However, do not unbalance this article with a list of non-notable buildings. If any builldings are listed on the NRHP, then sure. Also, do not add back the image gallery of non-notable buildings. Many of us could fill some articles with photos from our personal collections, but a consensus of editors who wrote WP:IG felt this would not improve articles. Perhaps Marine 69-71 could better familiarize themself with the Commons, and the photo-sharing and gallery options available there. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is encyclopedic to briefly describe the fact that the town has shrunk and many buildings have been abandoned, with a couple illustrations. It is not encyclopedic to list names and photos of a dozen+ generic non-notable buildings that happen to no longer be occupied and I'm surprised the long-time editor who made this didn't realize that, nor that it's inappropriate to create a new article when your content is removed from the main one. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per Elemimele. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hayden, Arizona since there's zero reason to have a separate fork article for this. Although with the caveat that the merge not include the gallery, maybe just a few specific buildings. Otherwise the article won't be balanced. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hayden, Arizona which will make a better merged page. Add a section about decline of Hayden. Gusfriend (talk) 08:20, 24 January 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 merge to Reichman University. ✗plicit 12:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radzyner Law School[edit]

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

Notability of this faculty seems to be WP:INHERITED from the university. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reichman University. I find this somewhat difficult to assess, because the article on the law school is, at least, substantially better developed than the one on the university, but I think a merger unless and until substantial evidence of independent notability is provided is the ideal solution. It is, of course, significant that this is not the sort of freestanding, entirely post-graduate sort of law school found in the United States. BD2412 T 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'd also be ok with a merge. I prodded the article several years ago as I didn't think there was any evidence of individual notability, plus and the article was written by someone from the university (Idc.herzliya (talk · contribs)). Number 5 7 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent institution, GNG is lacking for this to have its own article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reichman University since this is clearly a non-notable fork of the parent institution's article. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 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 Serbian diaspora. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 05:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Mexicans[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I can't find any coverage of this topic at all in books and academic databases, having searched Google Scholar, Google Books, and my local university database for several plausible variations on the subject title in English and Spanish. Maybe someone can find high-quality sources in Serbian, but I doubt it. We should not be coining articles for ethnic sub-groups unless they have received notability-generating coverage in peer-reviewed sources. Among the sources in the article, the closest anything comes to providing the solid ethnographic coverage that would justify an article is [16], which is primarily about the Serbian embassy in Mexico rather than "Serbian Mexicans", is woefully superficial as an ethnography of the Serbian Mexican community. Restore the redirect to Serbian diaspora, where a section can be developed using the more trivial and lower quality sources that do exist about Serbians in Mexico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Source 2 doesn’t even mention Mexico. Source 3 says there are 3000 Serbs in Mexico and they don’t even have their own church. To small and unorganised to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This article appears to have been poorly translated from another language, although I don't know what the original source was or what language it was in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 19 January 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 12:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Resonance[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this band. SL93 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since 2015, no updates have been made to prove the notability, likewise I did not find sources that could prove the notability.--Tysska (talk) 12:43, 19 January 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!} 04:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Murray Hunt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC does not fulfill any of the criteria like multiple published significant sources. Sea Cow (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sea Cow (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a NYT obit, already in the article. With such a common name, and the likelihood that the subject usually went by "A. M. Hunt" and did his main work prior to 1915, and then did presumably secret work advising the US Navy during WWI, it is hard to find details online quickly. Unfortunately I can't access NYT, but, according to the Naval Advisory Board article, Hunt is included in the New York Times article of September 13, 1915, which states that the Naval Advisory Board is "... the organization of experts, who will contribute their inventive genius to the navy..." which seems to me, together with the NYT obit, to be strongly suggestive of notability. There are patents coming up in a Google Scholar search [17], as well as a mention in Proceedings of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers [18] about the Naval Advisory Board appointment. Another possible hit in The Journal of Military History [19][20], which again I unfortunately can't access to verify. Also multiple Google Books hits, including a Who Was Who entry [21] (snippet view only but looks to be a detailed entry); an index to Who Was Who In America With World Notables: 1607-2007[22]; discussion in Engineering Magazine [23] (snippet view, but looks to be significant); [24] (snippet view again, but also looks significant); as well as [25],[26], [27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32], plus many more I don't have time to check through now. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Extraordinary Writ for explaining how to access NYT; from the obit, Hunt was also president of the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1921 and 1922. I'll add some details to the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've reviewed the New York Times obituary mentioned above (in ProQuest, free through WP:TWL), and it is indeed significant coverage: four paragraphs, including a statement that he was a "nationally eminent electrical and mechanical engineer". A Newspapers.com search yields additional coverage – [33] (Oakland Tribune), [34] (Sioux City Journal), and [35] (Associated Press, nationally reprinted) – and Espresso Addict has identified several other promising sources. Particularly since additional offline/difficult-to-find sources likely exist as well, Murray seems to pass WP:BASIC easily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper has always been considered sufficient to prove notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no there is no policy or guideline that says "A full obituary in a major national newspaper has always been considered sufficient to prove notability". I read the NYT obituary and it is clearly a family provided obituary, like many others of similar length on the same page with various bold claims including his description as a "nationally eminent electrical and mechanical engineer". Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, longstanding consensus at AfD, as has been pointed out before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another "consensus" that you claim exists...Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another one that you claim doesn't... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article put out by the Associated Press about his death is titled "Noted Engineer Dies in California." I think that would speak to his notability by itself. [36]Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between the Times obit and the Oakland Tribune article, supplemented by the Sioux City Journal piece, the article passes the threshold. As a point of information, the Times doesn't run "family provided obituar[ies]". The article's byline is "Special to The New York Times", meaning that it was reported by a Times stringer (as opposed to a staff reporter or correspondent or by a wire service). Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 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!} 04:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce, Slope County, North Dakota[edit]

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

A crossroads with a farmstead on one corner, and a short ways down the one road, the church pictured, which is in fact quite isolated. One gathers it may have been the site of a post office, but not seeing a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find much in the way of coverage here. There are a couple of mentions in obituaries and the like of it once having had businesses, though none of them say what kind of businesses. A 1915 article about the organization of Slope County called it a post office town, but having a post office didn't mean as much in 1915 as it does now. Even the church doesn't have much coverage outside of event announcements and one short mention of its 75th anniversary (and a lot of the event announcements claim it's in Scranton, which is a bad sign). Searching is complicated by Pierce County, North Dakota and Pierce being a common last name, but there still doesn't seem to be enough out there to build an article on. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:56, 19 January 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!} 04:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Javaheri[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NSINGER and GNG Cassiopeia talk 04:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 04:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 04:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 04:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History merge from Draft:Benjamin Javaheri is needed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The WP:HISTMERGE has been completed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy KeepThe article has been moved to the main space by the administrator and they have confirmed that I do not know the reason for this request, but he is meeting with WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG.--Minavahid (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minavahid: The history merge was a procedural action because of the request here above for it to occur and the tag that was formerly on the article page requesting it. Sorry, but this does not create notability for the subject. Attribution was not provided when the content from the draft page was copied and pasted to the main namespace article. The history merge fixes this, but does not imply notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is more vanity spam from RadioJavan - they are not notable and it's paid for nonsense. An admin moving or not moving a page is irrelevant as admins have no more control over content than you or I do. Each of the sources are lackluster and unreliable and this has been discussed endlessly elsewhere. SANTADICAE🎅 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete nom, I did the extensive research on the subject, couldn't find a single source pertaining to him Mardetanha (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete All sources and sources of Iranian music that contain his songs are mostly financial, because in Iran, music sites receive their money and publish the song of a singer. So this can not be a good source for his public image.--Karestoonegoli (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLack of independent and reliable references to demonstrate his notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Notability (music) Hosseinronaghi (talk) 13:43, 23 January 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 merge to Nusantara (proposed city). Closing as "Merge" but whether there's any material at the former article that should be merged into Nusantara (proposed city) is a content question for interested editors to decide. I've left the page history visible to all. Ajpolino (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nusantara metropolitan area[edit]

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

Speculative article about a proposed capital. No mention of this topic in media, demonstrated by the lack of references in the article (the linked further reading don't even have any mention about metropolitan area). Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: it is not speculation, both Nusantara and Nusantara metropolitan area has already officially announced by the official government of Indonesia, even the official website has already explained it all, similar topic also found such as the New Administrative Capital for Egypt, and those capital didn't even have official name yet, but these Indonesian new capital already officially announced, you can even search about the official Indonesian bills in the official website regarding these matter. Thank you. Mbis Saravon (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbis Saravon: There are few people I would trust more in the topic area of Indonesia than Jeromi. If he is bringing this to AfD, not only is he aware of what has been announced, he understands it does not yet merit this particular article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Hello, Wikipedia welcomed anyone to perform their contributions, including me for instance. Your personal thought about someone you favor on Wikipedia shouldn't be used to degrade and devalue my contribution in Wikipedia. I'm just trying to give my constructive contribution here. WP:NPC, WP:APR. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with what Saravon said here. Just because I'm a longstanding Indonesian topic editor doesn't mean I'm right about anything. This AfD is just a quick assesment on the worthiness of an article. If the government announce something regarding a metropolitan, I would gladly withdraw this nomination. Since most of the consensus is in favor of merging, that means that the article is not going to be deleted, but instead redirected to somewhere else, with the content still being viewable in the primary article. I suggest Mbis Saravon to do the merging themselves in order to kept authorsip attribution. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: Merging the Nusantara metropolitan area to Nusatara isn't the right thing to do either, because both represents different entity eventhough it is interconnected. In Indonesian system, the capital region are comprises the capital itself as the core city and also the metropolitan area, you can see the former capital Jakarta and Jakarta metropolitan area are two different thing, and also it's applied to all main cities in Indonesia such as Surabaya with its Surabaya metropolitan area, Bandung with its Bandung metropolitan area, Medan with its Medan metropolitan area, and so on. And anyways, thank you for your concern guys, I believe it is part of your good faith to avoid any vandalism on Wikipedia, but my intention here was nothing but to give constructive contributions, I hope you guys could welcome or accept me here as part of the Wikipedia community. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I understand, but here it is. The proposed capital haven't been finished yet, and we already have three articles related to the new capital (the proposal, the capital, and the metropolitan concept). I understand that in the future this will be built. Because this metropolitan concept is still just an imagination at its best, there is no design or even a physical one (just an analogy according to the website), so it is better to combine them for the time being. If there is a clear plan from the central government and the media has covered it, then we can start creating content. So far what you have written is factual and balanced and I appreciate your constructive contribution here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it is not "proposed", it is already "official", eventhough it is still under the development, it doesn't mean it's not official and not worthy to mention, the de facto capital of Indonesia is Nusantara according to the 2019 (and later renewed in early 2022) official bill. If you considered this project as "imagination", then explain me why some infrastructures already built there? It is already clear plan of government and the Indonesian media covered it, even the construction started since 2017 (if I'm not mistaken), in 2019 the President Joko Widodo a.k.a. Jokowi declared the official location of new capital that in 2022 "Nusantara" officially chosen as the new capital city name. Compared to similar article, the New Administrative Capital of Egypt didn't even have any official name yet it is allowed to exist in Wikipedia. And in Indonesian system, it is clear in Indonesia that capital city automatically will have the following metropolitan area. If you need to know more about Indonesian system, please kindly learn about it first. So instead of deleting the article or nominate it for deletion, please consider to put the Expand template on top of the article to engage contributors to give further improvements on article. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

We already have an article on the proposed capital. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Indonesian system, core city and metropolitan area are two different entity, you didn't read previous comment carefully? I even gave you examples of how capital system works in Indonesia. Jakarta ≠ Jakarta Raya, Bandung ≠ Bandung Raya, Surabaya ≠ Surabaya Raya, etc. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Capital of Indonesia. Until there is more information and references, it is better to consolidate the information there. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think an article exists at Nusantara (city). Maybe it's better to redirect this article there instead. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I didn't notice that article before. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @HueMan1 and Hanif Al Husaini: Hello, both Nusantara and Nusantara metropolitan area are two different thing, in Indonesia the capital region system include the main capital city as the core area, and its surrounding area. Take example from Indonesian former capital Jakarta and Jakarta metropolitan area are two different thing with different purposes, it is also applied to another main cities in Indonesia such as Surabaya and Surabaya metropolitan area, Bandung and Bandung metropolitan area, Medan and Medan metropolitan area, and so on. So please before making any assumption and suggestion, please learn and understand the Indonesian system first. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to Nusantara (city). There is currently no metropolitan area to speak of, so it would only make sense to merge it to the planned city (which has not physically existed yet either). dwadieff ✉ 05:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: The metropolitan area which will covered Nusantara (as the core city), Balikpapan, Samarinda, and some other parts of East Kalimantan is already exist, how come you said there is no metropolitan area to speak of? the only thing that still under development is the Nusantara itself as the capital city, but the surrounding areas are pretty much ready, so the "merge" option isn't quite make sense since these region is exist and already prepared since years ago. Furthermore, in Indonesian system, the core city and metropolitan area are two different entity that shouldn't be mixed because it has distinctive regulations. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
"the core city and metropolitan area are two different entity that shouldn't be mixed because it has distinctive regulations". Can you point to the specific Undang-Undang or Peraturan here? dwadieff ✉ 02:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion. Non-existent metropolitan area. Even Nusantara (city) itself still pretty much only "planned" city at this moment. Support the creation of this page only if the new city is officially start functioning and actually have the metropolitan area.Ckfasdf (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ckfasdf: What do you mean by non-existent? The metropolitan area is even already prepared ways before the designation of Nusantara itself. Just because the Nusantara still under the development, it doesn't mean it could devalue the existence of its metropolitan area. Even the New Administrative Capital of Egypt didn't even have any official name and pretty much in similar condition, why didn't you guys nominate it for deletion? (Mbis Saravon (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Because it simply did not exist and proved by the lack of references. I have no issue on dedicated page for new capital such as Nusantara (city) or New Administrative Capital of Egypt as they have enough references. But, to have non-existent metropolitan page as this one. it is clearly speculation or presumptions per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you didn't even review the article and try to look up to the references first, the information on the article is based on the offical website of Capital Region itself, the area that will covered as metropolitan and even what will be included as part of it is even clearly defined there. It is not presumption if the official government already declared and defined it, you can even see the bills and regulations on that website. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
@Mbis Saravon: Please kindly point out the part in the web that says "Nusantara metropolitan area". Thank you. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the government hasn't provide any legal documents except for the bill there. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on Nusantara metropolitan area page, there is only one source of reference which is from https://ikn.go.id/tentang-ikn. Even there, there is no mention on metropolitan area or kawasan metropolitan. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeromi Mikhael: In https://ikn.go.id/, the area of metropolitan (Indonesian: Kawasan Strategis Nasional (KSN) IKN) will covered 256412 Ha which comprises the Nusantara (56180 Ha) as the core city (Indonesian: Kawasan Ibu Kota Negara (IKN)) + its surrounding (199962 Ha) as the part of the metropolitan area (Indonesian: Kawasan Pengembangan IKN). And in https://ikn.go.id/tentang-ikn, the metropolitan area are defined by three major regions namely Nusantara itself (as the core city), Samarinda, Balikpapan. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
In https://ikn.go.id/, no single mention of metropolitan area or kawasan metropolitan.Even if we use search feature on that site, still nothing show up (https://ikn.go.id/search?q=metropolitan). and it further convinced me that it is speculation WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question, did you learnt Indonesian language? because someone who learnt Indonesian language and familiar with Indonesian things would understand directly, I even put the Indonesian words in my prior comment exactly like on the website to ease your effort. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I'll have to return this question to you, since you're the one translating Kawasan Strategis Nasional (kawasan = area, strategis = strategic, nasional = national) to Nusantara metropolitan area. And here's my contribution on the Indonesian Wikipedia.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you're not so familiar with the Indonesian system, the Indonesian terminology didn't have to be exactly mentioned as 'metropolitan area' but it bears the same meaning in English as the metropolitan area itself, such as the 'Jabodetabek' which is the popular name for Jakarta metropolitan area, the 'Gerbang Kertosusila' for Surabaya metropolitan area, and so on. If you go to direct-translation, the Surabaya metropolitan area name would be translated as "The Gate of Kertosusila" in English for instance, but in fact, it doesn't referred to any "gate" at all. And by the way your personal contribution should be something that you kept for yourself, it can't be used as the base argument to deprecate my contribution here WP:APR. Without you even said it, I appreciate your contribution guys. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Indonesian language actually has exact terminology for metropolitan area which is kawasan metropolitan as stipulated in article 1.26 of Law 26/2007 and article 17 of Law 11/2020. but there is no mention of either metropolitan area or kawasan metropolitan in https://ikn.go.id/. So your claim is simply unsourced. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you can not translate "Gerbang kertosusila" into English as "The Gate of Kertosusila". Because it is an acronym of Gresik–Bangkalan–Mojokerto–Surabaya–Sidoarjo–Lamongan and not refer to actual "Gate" / "Gerbang". Ckfasdf (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you serious question, are you Indonesian who familiar with Indonesian capital naming system? and did you understand Indonesian language? I already gave you clue in my previous comments, and you can clearly find it on website. And did you just repeating my point? because that's exactly my point, even there's no "metropolitan" word mentioned on the website, the name can bears the same meaning as metropolitan area itself, please see another metropolitan areas of Indonesia so you could understand the pov. I wonder why it's so hard for you to grasp the information that I'm trying to deliver. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
See.. even you agree there's no "metropolitan" word mentioned on the website, and it was you and only yourself who translate/consider Kawasan Strategis Nasional (KSN) IKN/Kawasan Ibu Kota Negara (IKN)/Kawasan Pengembangan IKN as "metropolitan area". Ckfasdf (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to your logic, Jabodetabek ≠ Jakarta metropolitan area, Medibangro ≠ Medan metropolitan area, Gerbangkertosusila ≠ Surabaya metropolitan area because it has no "metropolitan" word in it? is that how you really think? (Mbis Saravon (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Jabodetabek = Jakarta metropolitan area, Medibangro = Medan metropolitan area, Gerbangkertosusila = Surabaya metropolitan area, because there are references that said so, such as https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu11ee/uu11ee15.htm and http://pwk.lib.itb.ac.id/index.php/bibliografi/detail/7786. On the other hand, there is no single reference that mention anything about Nusantara metropolitan area. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nusantara (city), this place does not exist and there's no need for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nusantara (city) for now, until the city physically exists. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nusantara (proposed city) per WP:CRYSTAL. No need to merge since the material that is worth preserving is already largely in the target article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:41, 27 January 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!} 04:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Tajikistan relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations: no embassies, agreements and a one off meeting of ministers at the side of another forum. Even the Greek Ministry of Foreign affairs doesn't say much about these relations [37]. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 01:00, 26 January 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 both to Duke Blue Devils#Fight songs. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Blue Devils fight songs[edit]

AfDs for these articles:

Articles for deletion/Fight! Blue Devils, Fight!

Articles for deletion/Blue and White (Duke fight song)

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

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

Neither song has any indication of notability; neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSONG are met. There isn't much info on Google besides lyrics and a few pages on Duke-specific websites. Seems like these should just be merged into Duke Blue Devils#Fight songs. --IagoQnsi (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by the nominator. (Changing my vote to Redirect, see below.) At Duke Blue Devils#Fight songs, write a brief paragraph about the two songs, then redirect these two article titles to there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and wrote that brief paragraph – it actually now has more information than these two articles combined. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done, so all we need now is a basic Redirect for each of the two article titles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Duke Blue Devils#Fight songs. They fail WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:33, 22 January 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 12:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The European Association of Ukrainians[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. 2 of the 4 sources are its own website. Gnews has nothing, and a plain google search does not appear to show any reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Their webpage doesn't work (and in fact there is no indication the organisation still works); few sources actually cover it and when they do, they tend to concentrate on really minor issues; there is little interest about the organisation from the media. Scholars do refer to it [38] as an organisation aiming to promote Ukraine in the European Union in publications made in 2009-2014, but none of the sources covered actually says anything beyond "it exists" (more worryingly, the text of the papers about the organisations is almost the same, which makes me think of plagiarism). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:58, 25 January 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!} 04:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of microbursts[edit]

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

Microbursts occur commonly throughout the world. This list includes many unreferenced entries and it is hard to distinguish which ones are actually notable and why they are notable. Unlike lists of tornadoes, this list is ill-defined and the standards are not well resolved. United States Man (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the list needs work, so instead of deleting it, let's WP:FIXIT. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I cannot necessarily find it being discussed as a group to satisfy LISTN to the letter, but lists like these normally are considered notable nonetheless. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA the article could have a criterion to reduce the size. TartarTorte 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But the criteria for inclusion should be spelled out. Right now it just says "notable", which may have a wikipedia specific jargon meaning that's clearly defined, but that jargon should only be used on project pages and talk pages and whatnot, we shouldn't expect a regular reader to know what that means. Fieari (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A table format would be better. Listing those that killed people or caused a significant amount of damage, makes sense. Dream Focus 07:51, 19 January 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rivers Ryan[edit]

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

The coverage of in reliable sources is minimal. Mostly it consists of very brief mentions (exceprpted below) and quotes that she provided for context on other subjects.

dailyfreeman is coverage of a wedding
artnews says "Tina Rivers Ryan, a curator with a focus on media art at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York," and provides a quote
independent "Tina Rivers Ryan, a curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo with expertise in digital art" and a quote
bbc "Dr Tina Rivers Ryan, an art historian and curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York, finds that the power lies in Salah’s posture." and a quote
buffalo "Tina Rivers Ryan, assistant curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery"
artforum is WP:ROUTINE coverage of an appointment
nytimes "said Tina Rivers Ryan, a curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo with expertise in digital art" and a quote
wbfo "Vanouse and co-curator Tina Rivers Ryan provided background during an afternoon tour of Albright-Knox Northland" and "Tina Rivers Ryan says" with several quotes. Vexations (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - just for the record, the listed WBFO article isn't just a tour Ryan gave - it talks about an ongoing exhibition co-curated by her for which critical commentary exists, at least this article in The Brooklyn Rail. Bridget (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:Basic, this is a stub - and if you want to go deeper with more citations it is possible. She is notable in her field, curation of digital art, which you can tell by the numerous mentions in mainstream news publications. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put them in then to prove they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I will try to do so. Please also note her work is in multiple national libraries, as you can see from the authority control. If anyone else wants to pitch in to help, please do so. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that this AfD has been alerted by its creator on the Women in Red talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

How do library holdings of a book establish notability for the (co)author? Most libraries are not at all selective, but the BNF and especially the Library of Congress collect just about anything that gets published. Vexations (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to answer your question and perhaps I am mistaken re: library holding having any significance. I apologize. Ryan has a lot of mentions in the news and in books (per BASIC), and there are citations specifically about her which have also been added in my expansion effort of the article. I am confused because the last time I checked the wiki rules, we did not make article deletion nominations in the case of thinking something needs clean up and a quick google search of her name indicates her presence? And yes, I had asked for clean up help from WiR because I have been busy (i.e. the pandemic), and the WiR project event was related to the creation of this stub. I apologize if I am not allowed to ask for help(?), I had assumed wikipedia was for collaboration. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologize. Of course you are allowed to ask for help, but we have consensus that canvassing is inappropriate. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless the post has changed, I don't see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Tina_Rivers_Ryan as a canvassing violation. @PigeonChickenFish is asking for citations to help in the decision making process, not help necessarily to !vote keep. Star Mississippi 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I worded my response poorly. I did not mean to imply that there was canvasssing. I wanted to point out that we differentiate between "help me !vote for my preferred outcome" and "help me improve (something)" and that asking for any kind of assistance in improving an article or a discussion or understanding of policy etc. is very much encouraged. Vexations (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article had 8 citations at the time of nomination, and as of today it has 16 citations. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that are in the article now, that were not present in the version that I brought to this discussion are
- www.caareviews.org
- www.voca.network
- brooklynrail.org
- jingculturecommerce.com
- record.horacemann.org
- www.corneliamag.com
- www.ubspectrum.com
- www.wgrz.com Of those, corneliamag stands out as a source that is entirely about the subject, but it is also an interview, so it is not a secondary source. Vexations (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Assistant curator at the prestigious Albright-Knox Art Gallery and published art historian. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just holding a job and publishing stuff does not confer notability. What are needed are multiple independent in-depth sources about the subject and there don't seem to be any. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

There are many sources (and that is enough for BASIC). However the nomination here glosses over all of the sources specifically about Ryan's work - and many of which have depth (for example see the comment left earlier by Bridget). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just about an exhibition, not about her. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly what do you think her work is, if not an exhibition? She works as a curator at a museum. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It just shows that she is doing her job (no doubt excellently). However that does not make a person notable. The sources show that she exists, but not that she is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Very weak keep. Assistant curator rather than head curator, at a regional museum rather than one at the national level of say the Met or MOMA (to pick two in the same state), definitely is not enough for automatic notability. We would need in-depth coverage of her work, sufficient to pass GNG. What we have is: non-in-depth listings of her marriage and degree; International but not in depth coverage merely quoting her as an expert on digital art (Artnews, The Independent, NYT, Jing), a local report on a talk she gave (The Horace Mann Record), the University of Buffalo promoting an exhibit co-curated with a UB faculty member (not independent; both the UB and Spectrum sources); a non-in-depth announcement that she was hired (Artforum); a non-reliable blog post, badly linked and disallowed as a source on a BLP (VOCA); local coverage of her exhibits (WBFO, WGRZ) an in-depth interview (Cornelia), and a single non-local in-depth review of an exhibit (Brooklyn Rail). The only sources among these that count at all towards notability for me are the WBFO, WGRZ, Cornelia, and Brooklyn Rail ones. If you are one of those editors who discount local sources and interviews as counting towards notability, then all that's left would be the Brooklyn Rail, not enough. I tend to think that WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE don't actually say anything about locality of sources and that discounting interviews as primary is a stretch, so the other three can count for me, but they're not very convincing. What pushes me from weak delete to weak keep is that we do have multiple major international sources that do not provide depth of coverage, but do make a credible claim that she is known as an expert on digital art. They don't directly contribute to Wikipedia-defined notability, but they make me more sympathetic to the idea that, as a known expert, she is the sort of person we should have an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Albright–Knox Art Gallery is a major collection. Not like MoMA, but a major museum like the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. It just happens to be in Buffalo, not NYC. Hardly regional. It is a big deal to be a curator there. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction: she's an Assistant Curator per [39]. The chief curator is Cathleen Chaffee. I do think that the Albright-Knox is a museum with an international, rater than regional scope. Definitely not a "local museum". I'll note that we have an article on Janne Sirén, the museum's director, but none of the curatorial staff, except TRR. Vexations (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several editors have listed reasons to Keep, will trust their judgment. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep Nothing in Jstor, she's got a few hits in Gscholar, but they don't appear to be papers, one looks like a .mp4 file of a lecture? She's got enough hits in the ArtNews or ArtForum, so she's relatively well-known. We know about the Knox-Albright here in Toronto, it's more than a local art gallery, more like a renowned, regional museum. I think this person is just over the line for notability.Oaktree b (talk)
Comment as an aside, I've had a few of these Women in Red articles come up in the deletion process that I either worked on or started/created. Seems counter productive if we (Wikipedia as a whole) ask for the article to be created then nominate it for deletion later. I would assume there is at least a basic level of vetting before they add them to the WiR list, is there not? Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
from my personal experience, no vetting required although some conversations end up taking suggestion A and end up discussing that subject within category B if it seems they don't yet meet GNG or the applicable SNG. Star Mississippi 03:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, Heads up that an appearance on a WiR "redlist" is not an indicator of notability. They are automatically generated from data in Wikidata. The lists have the language "All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify." at the top. I know it gets lost in all the other text, but it is there. I also made the same mistake of thinking if a name was on a redlist, it was of a notable person. Wikidata is far more inclusive than English Wikipedia will ever be. There is a redlist of Badminton players listing over 5,000 players. Cause for a lot of head-scratching. Anyway, you do have to check that the subject meets notability criteria. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assistant curator is about as significant as assistant professor--it normally means not yet notable. The quality of the museum is irrelevant--all museums have junior staff who are not yet notable. . Being quoted briefly in articles about other people is not significant coverage. The way WiR articles can avoid deletion is by 1. taking care to select the many really notable people who do not yet have WP articles--(for example Cathleen Chaffee as mentioned above, who is the actual curator, not one of the assistants, and 2. writing encyclopedia articles that don't include minor material--that inevitable give the impression there isn't any major accomplishments. That way, any editors here who still might be unreasonably skeptical won't single them out any more than other articles. A few such projects have taken lists of 100 women in whatever, ,or women under 30 in some profession, and uncritically made articles on all of them. `` DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As DGG said, she is an assistant curator, akin to an assistant professor. Assistant professors who have not published more two books and are not widely cited do not qualify for articles. If she had authored numerous books, she may have notability as an author. Being an assistant curator at a middle tier (no offense meant) institution and doing normal assistant curator stuff does not qualify someone for an article. She is still early in her career, so there is plenty of time for her to rise through the ranks, author books, etc. Let’s see where she is in five to ten years and then maybe she’ll have passed the notability threshold. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In addition to the support for WP:BASIC notability as an expert noted above, I also found two book reviews: Publishers Weekly, Choice Reviews (via ProQuest, by J. H. Noonan), "Ryan unpacks the connection between technology and irrationality. [...] Highly recommended. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers." Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, that should do it. Will link this page somewhere in an essay I've been intending to write (started, WP:SHADOW). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interested participants in this discussion can find the review of Baum, Kelly. Delirious: art at the limits of reason, 1950-1980 by Noonan, F.H. via the Wikipedia Library: [40] There is a singe sentence about Ryan: "Lastly, Ryan unpacks the connection between technology and irrationality." Vexations (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan is one of three authors of the 2017 book, which was published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A pretty good publishing credit. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, everybody who contributed a chapter to a book that has been reviewed is now notable. WP:PROF says that the criterion that the person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks. But never mind, this is close enough, right? A sentence in a review here and there, and a chapter published. Hardly any citations, but who cares? We "rescued" an article. Well done. Congratulate yourselves. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF also states, Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark, and I think the available sources help support keeping the article - from my view, her recognition as an expert is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that also helps support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Vexations (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I think WP:NPROF is helpful to consider in this discussion, my !vote is based on WP:BIO, because she has a multi-faceted career that includes her work as a curator, art historian, writer, and critic. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant development since nomination, and Albright-Knox is indeed a nationally notable art museum at least. Just two days ago, they co-acquired a Kusama with the Smithsonian, and they're listed in a list of this year's top international museum and art gallery openings and renovations. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the acquisition of Infinity Mirrored Room—My Heart Is Dancing into the Universe, contributed to the notability of anyone, that would be Janne Sirén and Melissa Chiu, who arranged te purchase. I can find no sources that say TRR was in any way involved. Nor do I see anywhere that she was she involved in the renovation. Vexations (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the two reliable reviews of her books push this over the edge for me. There are also other reviews of her work, like her contribution to Efficient Causation: A history.[41] WP:Interviews like the Cornelia Mag piece sometimes are indicators of notability. Reliable sources don't usually do features about the careers of non-notable people. FWIW, I don't consider sources like NYT and the Independent to be local news coverage so being cited as an expert there has a little more weight with me towards NPROF. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:27, 27 January 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 03:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul R. Devin[edit]

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

The "Supreme Advocate of the Knights of Columbus" fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think I know enough about the Knights of Columbus for the relevant context here, or what it means for somebody to be the "Supreme Advocate". Can anyone who's more familiar confirm whether or not Paul R. Devin might be notable under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:JUDGE? I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, but we should check the other two as well before coming to a consensus. Theknightwho (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Miniapolis 23:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The KoC is a fraternal order, just like the Elks or the Moose clubs. "Supreme Advocate" is just the sort of pompous title members give to one another, right along with "Thrice Exalted Worshipful Master" or "Grand High Kleagle." Neither NACADEMIC nor JUDGE are any more in play than they would be for the leaders of the local Boy Scout troop. The article stands and falls on the GNG, and the subject does not meet it. Ravenswing 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per His Excellency, the Most Eloquent High Wikipedial Deleter-and-Keeper of the Articles, Ravenswing; if Devin has done something notable apart from belong to the order, someone can make a new article when they find the sources. Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All hail the Grandest of Poobahs (2nd Class)! Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and thanks for the laugh Ravenswing). Unable to identify any sourcing to establish notability, and as discussed above this is not an independently significant role. Star Mississippi 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Knights of Columbus appears to be a Catholic Friendly Society, offering insurance to members (with $100M assets). Th chief executive (or perhaps chairman) has the title of supreme knight and has an article that does not say much about him, but he may be notable. The supreme advocate (whom we are discussing here) is probably the chief legal officer. I doubt that is enough to make him WP-notable, and there is nothing else there potentially notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in light of the above, not notable at all. Theknightwho (talk) 14:18, 22 January 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 03:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Old Catholicism[edit]

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

None of the sources given talk about the subject of the article. The subject clearly fails WP:NCHURCH and is possibly WP:Self-promotion. It is also now an unvoluntary WP:FORK as its original subject was deleted from WP recently.
From what I remember, it seems the article has received some copy-paste of some parts of the now deleted (see this AfD) article Church of the Holy Paraclete (see this page move), but there is no crediting. If one looks at the previous versions, it is obvious it is the same subject as Church of the Holy Paraclete (which I remember was at one point renamed "Church of the Holy Spirit" according to the now deleted article).
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This sems to cover attempts by the old Catholic denomination, Polish National Catholic Church to establish congregations in one state, some of which survive as part of the mother denomination, while others have gone their own way or dispersed. This is thus an article on an aspect of a small denomination, which we would normally keep, but can we find a merge target for it? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to further support my claim of WP:FORK, I now see that the name at the Wikidata item is "Chapel of the Holy Spirit" (see wikidata:Q28230654). Veverve (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Old Catholicism in the United States is not so prominent a religious movement that we need to cover it on a state-by-state basis, nor do there appear to be sources which so analyze it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many problems with this article that it is difficult to decide where to begin so I will start with the personal observation that I grew up in that area as a member of the Polish-descended Catholic community and never once heard "Old Catholics" mean anything other than "the little old ladies who came to weekday Mass to pray the Rosary." Moving on, I note that the supposed mother church for Old Catholics in Rhode Island is a closed church of a different denomination in a different state. Indeed, the article seems to be attempting an A:B and B:C therefore A:C type of argument through the Polish National Catholic Church. That the Old Catholic Church in the entire United States merits neither its own article nor mention in the Old Catholic Church article makes the notability of the denomination in the smallest state doubtful. The final nail in the coffin is that every apparent RS in the article does not refer to specifically Rhode Island Catholicism of any sort. Tl;dr version: Per Veverve's nomination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 24 January 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 University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto Department of Chemistry[edit]

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

We almost never make articles on individual departments of a university-- even a very major one like Toronto--unless there are very good third party sources, specifically about the department, not the individual people on the faculty. Everything subsstantial here is first party. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing sources directly associated with the subject; mostly driven by the notable alumni's success. All of the secondary sources cited help make a case of notability for the academic figures but not the Department. Notability is not inherited. Perhaps the info from the page may be useful to include in the University of Toronto page. Multi7001 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I’m seeing the difference between this and the articles for the departments of chemistry at Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, etc, the contributions of the faculty are the contributions of the department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.154 (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:ORG as a standalone department. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Reywas92^Talk 15:06, 19 January 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 sources provided by Beccaynr have remained uncontested. Sandstein 09:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra Parks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality show participant. Keeps getting re-created from redirect. Fails GNG, absolutely no in-depth coverage about this person outside show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable reality televsion star. Wikipedia articles need reliable sources, not one tabloid mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep I'd expect with that much TV time, there would be something written about her. The article has zero sources. I started the Shannon Singh article, she was only on Love Island UK for one episode and she got a whack of coverage. Would have to dig to find sources for this person, but I'm not interested in doing so. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added sources and tried to fix some aspects of the page. Samsmachado (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial accomplishments -- the coverage is the typical tabloid style coverage the show was apparently designed to attract. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom seems to insinuate a WP:BLP1E ("no in-depth coverage about this person outside show", presumably RHOA is the "show" in question), but sources reflect coverage for Parks' book, Covenant, Marriage Bootcamp, and the upcoming RH Ultimate Girls' Trip. It would be confusing and bad journalistic practice for these sources to not mention that Parks did nine seasons of RHOA, but this does not mean that the sources are only reflective of Parks' time on that show. Subject has sustained coverage over a decade, which strongly suggests notability. Meets WP:GNG by People article (per WP:RSP, "There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons"), EW coverage of RHOA, and Philadelphia Tribune article. Samsmachado (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Reviews of her book include The Philadelphia Tribune, Publishers Weekly and a blurb on Bravo. And there was a long-running defamation lawsuit related to a book published by someone else that included claims about her, covered in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution [42], in addition to the extensive coverage related to her biography and television career, e.g. Atlanta Black Star/Yahoo, 2021, ET Online, 2021, Essence, 2020, BET, 2020, ET Online, 2020, Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2017, ET Online, 2017, Daily Beast, 2017, ABC News, 2016, LA Times, 2014, CNN, 2014, Variety, 2014, Glamour, 2012, People, 2012. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the number of reviews for her book seem to smash WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:38, 27 January 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!} 00:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Road Estate[edit]

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

Fails NCORP - no independent coverage. Sourced almost entirely to press releases. KH-1 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Limited gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I cannot find anything remotely satisfying IRS. The bloomberg ref is just a press release by the subject. The yahoo refs are just an interview and the same press release in bloomberg. The apnews ref is yet another copy of the same press release. Looks like badly done REFBOMBING and scheming? There perhaps needs to be some balance see for example this. Article is not correct re company structure, see this and this for example. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 19 January 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. ✗plicit 03:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellen Callahan[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill government employee fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No vote yet, but adding in citations to news articles covering Callahan (and someone can feel free to let me know if I should not note that here. I still feel quite new to these discussions). DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established by recent additions, for example 'Former DHS privacy head moves to law firm' in FCW and 'Jenner & Block becomes latest law firm to build privacy practice' in Washington Post Mujinga (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given recent additions. Coolcactus04 (talk) 01:32, 21 January 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 03:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set around Mardi Gras[edit]

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

An unsourced collection of thumbnail plot summaries of films set in or around Mardi Grad. It has the same issues as the recently deleted List of films set around Oktoberfest. The article claims that this is a genre of film when it isn’t it’s just a setting. It’s a sort of fan’s list but there’s no indication that the list has any basis in film scholarship or other reliable sources. There are a few “top-ten” type listicles online but that’s all I found. I don’t believe this is a valid list article. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I offer the following counterarguments to deletion: 1. Do the other comparable "List of films set around holidays" have scholarly attribution than the lists I have proposed? For example, List of films set around May Day, List of films set around Mother's Day, List of films set around New Year, and List of films set around Valentine's Day are all unattributed and yet they were not targeted for deletion. Why should the List of films set around Mardi Gras require scholarly attribution beyond popular online listicles attributing them to the holiday of Mardi Gras? What type of attribution would be considered sufficient to prevent deletion and in what timeline would attribution be required? I have a full-time job unrelated to film, so I have limited time to do scholarly research on this topic or to reach out to film scholars for aid. 2. Clearly some people watch films about Halloween every year in October, about Thanksgiving in November, and Christmas in December. I believe these additional holiday-related film lists would inspire others to view films set around other holidays of the year as I have been inspired to do. Many of the online holiday film listicles are incomplete in scope and focus on the most recent films at the time of the online publication of the listicle. By compiling a more comprehensive curated list of films from several listicles, the various lists about films set around holidays provides a service to Wikipedia users. 3. In the interest of fairness and inclusion Wikipedia has an obligation to be unbiased in its coverage of films set around all holidays that are not exclusively celebrated in the United States or predominantly by Christians. The holiday of Mardi Gras/Carnival/Fasnacht is celebrated by multiple European countries and their former colonies. Wikipedia entries that encourage users to move beyond their own holidays and ethnocentrism would promote tolerance and understanding of other cultural practices. Beyond my efforts, I believe that international editors should be recruited to fill the gap in films set around holidays celebrated in India, China, Japan, etc. (examples described in this TV series https://smile.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B07L4C5YWH/ref=atv_hm_hom_1_c_myhimm_2_2) that will most likely be non-English language films.GMBuchold (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-12 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, dubious topic, contacted the page creator GMBuchold about their (now deleted) List of films set around Oktoberfest to discuss whether it's a good idea to create pages like this, no response. Mujinga (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I agree with Mujinga that this a dubious topic. A lot of the movie summaries don't even say what the movies have to do with Mardi Gras and "around Mardi Gras" could literally mean anything. So this goes against the guidelines for lists. Maybe List of films set at Mardi Gras would work though. I don't really know, but my inclination is to think it wouldn't. Either way, this list doesn't work. BTW, I think this kind of list does for something like List of films set around Valentine's Day because like someone else stated Valentine's Day movies are a genre, but Mardi Gras movies aren't. So they aren't really comparable. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 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.