< June 15	June 17 >

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

The result was merge to Extended reality. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multisensory extended reality[edit]

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

I believe this article is a POV fork of Extended reality. While there is a small amount of coverage of multisensory extended reality, I don't believe it warrants a content fork given that its parent is still a stub. I would make this a request for merge but the content here I think is too poor to be redeemable without totally starting from scratch. None of the content in the article aside from the first and third sentence reflects anything written in the sources, which are themselves mostly unreliable (including citing a google search page?). BrigadierG (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to extended reality; this is too much of a content fork. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see a few more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back. Only sourced information needs to be included in the original article. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it would fit in naturally with extended reality. I have a hard time distinguishing it from 4D cinema even. SWinxy (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'merge' !votes: it should be noted that your intended target article is itself proposed to be merged into Extended reality learning. Kevin McE (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Multisensory extended reality, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Merge to extended reality. Zeddedm (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to extended reality.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 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 14:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica (dance)[edit]

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

Long-standing single-source one-line dicdef. Nothing indicates that this is encyclopedia material. BD2412 T 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Greece. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage in an encyclopaedia here, and this academic article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source literally contains nothing more than the following line in a list of dances: "ἀγγελική, ἀγγελικόν, angeliki, angelike, aggeliki, angelikon". The second is a hair more promising, but does not take this article beyond a dictionary definition of this being the name of an ancient Greek dance. BD2412 T 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on the link in the encyclopaedia database: it will download a .docx file, which contains more information and translations of the relevant primary sources. Also, I think the analysis in the second article goes beyond a simple dictionary definition: there are three paragraphs of analysis with quotations from the ancient sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That .docx file seems to be a dicdef, still, appended by a list of instances. How is the article expanded from that in an encyclopedic way? BD2412 T 18:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the .docx? It's 1041 words and full of new information. Then there's the article, which devotes 3 paragraphs to discuss what the dance might've involved, with reference to the ancient sources and the "messenger" etymology. The article could obviously be improved using these sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those 1041 words seem to describe incidental uses of the term in other works. BD2412 T 22:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The third source cited is a short academic article, which certainly goes beyond dict defn. For those without Greek angelos means messenger. It has given rise to the word angel, who in a Christianb contet is seen as God's angel. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep°. Referenced, meets general notability guidelines and a topic of historical interest. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it meets notability. I have seen many entries similar to this that have been preserved --PaulPachad (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, subject meets GNG. HenryTemplo (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the aforementioned reasons. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article would do better with more information, but it passes notability and can stand as an article. NMasiha (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources I see now, it is notable. Zeddedm (talk) 02:05, 23 June 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SL93 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Ehrlich[edit]

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

She directed only one notable documentary, but that was as a co-director. The documentary was nominated for an Academy Award, but it didn't win. It did win multiple film festival awards, but they don't appear to be significant enough to show that the co-director is notable. The only reference is to a primary source that is an interview with both directors. I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. SL93 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is biographical and career information in an article about another one of her films: They Refused to Fight, Even in the 'Good War' (NYT, 2002), a review of the film in Film & History, and in Library Journal (via Gale), so it looks like the article can be further developed and WP:CREATIVE#3 notability is supported with her collective body of work, the multiple reviews for The Most Dangerous Man in America and another film being the primary subject of an article and reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) (there is another Film & History review for the same film at the WP Library: Stewart-Winter, Timothy. May2003, Vol. 33(1), p70-72, and the full text of Suid, Lawrence. Spring2013, Vol. 43(1), p67-69 is also available) Beccaynr (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr Thank you. I will close this as withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 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, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hewani[edit]

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

Just one line? Is it the criteria for eligibility? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coast Province per this reverted edit. MIDI (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for places is usually simply that they are a human settlement. Please judge notability based on the results of your WP:BEFORE searches, not the article as it stands. CT55555 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep speedily as there is no rationale for deletion given. I agree with User:CT55555, but we don't need to discuss this at all. --Doncram (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added sources. I must emphasise that the idea we should delete an article based on sources in it is at odds with AfD process. We should search for sources as required by WP:BEFORE and base assessments of notability on what we find from the searches. Indeed this should probably be a speedy keep. CT55555 (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on new sources added and based on policy for places that CT55555 mentioned. Zeddedm (talk) 02:06, 23 June 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!} 05:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hale[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Non-notable author. SL93 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. SL93 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is a very obscure author apparently, according to comments and I could find a bean on her at all, nothing. One of her books did a win a prize at the Great North American Fiction Contest, a prize that has been running for three centuries, so they are probably notable. I would suggest a redirect for the moment to one of the books. scope_creep^Talk 07:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on no other citations that can be found. If she did win an award per what scope_creep says, that award is not notable. There is not a Wiki page for " Great North American Fiction Contest." Zeddedm (talk) 02:11, 23 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naushabah Khan[edit]

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

Poorly formatted and semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claims here are that she's a local authority councillor and an unsuccessful candidate for election to Westminster -- but neither of those are "inherently" notable roles that guarantee Wikipedia articles: local authority councillors are notable only if they can credibly claim to have special nationalized significance that would make them markedly more notable than most other local authority councillors, and unelected candidates get to have Wikipedia articles only if they were already notable enough to have Wikipedia articles for other reasons anyway.
While there's a very, very long list of "references" here, they're all just contextlessly listed in the references section without actually being used to footnote any of the body content, and they mostly aren't proper support for notability anyway -- they represent a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (e.g. her own alumni profile on the self-published website of her own alma mater, her contributor profile on the self-published website of an organization that she's written content for), glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things, and purely run of the mill local election coverage in local media where coverage of local elections is merely expected. Essentially, the creator just listed every web page they could find that had Naushabah Khan's name in it at all, without regard to whether it was WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about her or not.
None of the sourcing here is adequate, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sourcing from having to be better. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep Here's why:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/medway-councillor-in-the-us-115285/ (about her, includes interviews)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-candidate-upset-by-ukip-rhetoric-0vk609hv9cn (paywall only let me read the first page but seems to be completely about her and done indepedently)
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/immigration-is-a-proxy-for-27012/ (brief, but is a news report that is about her and the London Mayor)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-s-england-problem quotes her book, it's brief
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britains-uk-independence-party-expected-to-win-crucial-vote-before-general-election/2014/11/19/8a4bd826-6ff8-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html has 5 sentences

Seems to suggest she is notable. CT55555 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and from what I have found in the WP Library, she is an author of an essay in the book Labour's Identity Crisis: England and the Politics of Patriotism, ed. Tristram Hunt, the author of the Spectator article. There is brief commentary about and a quote from her essay in a 2016 book review by The Guardian (via Gale). The 2014 WaPo article (also available via Gale) is focused on the UKIP expected win, and briefly introduces her and quotes her at the end of the article. In 2014, the Sunday Times (via Gale) in an article about the election generally, appreciated her campaign slogan but also expected her to lose. In 2015, the London Standard (via Gale) in an article generally about the election, briefly mentions her with "works in public affairs in London and whose hobbies include kick-boxing, is standing again" as context. There is PR consultant and keen kickboxer Naushabah Khan selected as Labour party candidate in Rochester and Strood (Kent Online, 2013), but it is based on an interview, although there is independent content about her, her education, and career. The paywalled Times article is also available via Gale, but does not continue much past the preview beyond noting "Ukip is on course to win" and referencing a past comment by Nigel Farage. ProQuest offers more election coverage where she is mentioned, including with kickboxing puns, but I am not finding in-depth, secondary coverage to support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL, or WP:AUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete best sources are pointed out by CT55555, everything else was just mentions or quotations. Sources are weak to keep a politicians that was not elected. Zeddedm (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR per the convincing source analysis by Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sea in Beirut[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BKCRIT; can't find good reliable secondary sources online, but it's old and searching in Arabic is difficult for me. Sources given in the article are insignificant, not independent, or unreliable, respectively. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 17:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't had time to really look for sources yet, so I can't say whether it passes GNG (I'm leaning delete even so), but I will say that even if we keep this article, it needs a lot of work. The whole "criticism" section is written in second-person pronouns, and the lead is a bit hard to follow. I know none of those issues qualify it for deletion, but I thought they were worth mentioning if anyone wants to take a crack at cleaning it up while we're searching for stuff to see if we can get it to pass WP:BKCRIT. As things currently stand, I'm leaning delete per nom, but I'm not ready to put in a !vote for that yet. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with much other Arabic literature there are dozens of sites offering the book for sale or download so there’s a lot to wade through. Bearing in mind that this book came out in 1963, the initial critical reaction would be decades before the internet and without being able to search newspapers and literary journals of the epoch we’re very restricted in what we can find. Nevertheless I found a 2022 appreciation of the work by a contemporary Jordanian writer here, a 2019 Algerian journal article dedicated to manifestations of alienation in this specific work here, and a 2022 Iraqi journal article about the poetics of the language in this specific work here. Lastly, though it doesn’t really count for notability, notice of a public discussion about the work in Lebanon in 2019 in a major national newspaper here. So clearly the book has been considered worthy of study and discussion over six decades, so I’m satisfied that it’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources found by Mccapra.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist People's Movement[edit]

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

Marginal far right group, split from National Alliance and arguably should be a footnote on that article. Lacks significant mainstream coverage, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NORG with significant mainstream coverage. No case for deletion or for merger to any present article. Unclear why this was nominated. gidonb (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is some coverage in reliable sources like de Volkskrant ([1], [2]), although it's somewhat routine. There is also deeper coverage in a book named Extreemrechts in Amsterdam, whose editors appear to be experts in the field. MarioGom (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging to National Alliance (Netherlands) could be a good option too. MarioGom (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, Keep or Merge? Other input would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject is not significantly and independently notable. The sources are simply not there. It's a short-lived, little-known, political party of the far right in The Netherlands. All we have is the standard, yearly report of the General Intelligence and Security Service about security threats, in which NVB is name-dropped 3 times in a 96-page text; a listing of NVB by the Dutch, antifascist website Kafka in a catalog of all political formations of the far right in the country; two reports about a street brawl involving the NVB (here and here); etc. The only potentially worthwhile reference might be this Trouw article but it's behind a sub wall. All to be expected since this is about a distinctly irrelevant and miniscule entity of the past. Just not enough. -The Gnome (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no it's not all we have. You just ignored the three references produced earlier by MarioGom.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by MarioGom and, oddly, The Gnome. Collectively these sources appear to meet our guidelines for notability.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 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 23:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Hassan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 17 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escapee[edit]

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

Article about a song, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NSONGS. The only notability claim here is that it's been featured in video games and advertising, which is not listed as a criterion in NSONGS at all, and the only sources are a YouTube copy of the ad and a Blogspot blog entry, neither of which are valid or notability-assisting sources. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the song from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bearcat.

The article contains these citations because the copy of the ad is to let the reader know the proof, (1) and the BlogSpot post to let viewers know the director of the video with having to rely on the music videos table in the Architecture in Helsinki article. (2)

noofus talk 23:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't just have to verify that information is true, they also have to prove that the information is notable by virtue of having been written about analytically by reliable sources independent of the claims being made. So you don't make a song "notable for having been featured in an ad" by sourcing that statement to a YouTube copy of the ad — you make a song notable on those grounds by sourcing the statement to journalist-written content in media that treats "song featured in ad" as a news story. And you don't source the identity of a video's director to Blogspot; you source it to journalist-written content in media that identifies them as the director of the video.
The rule on Wikipedia is not that you can source an article to just any web page you can find that technically verifies the information you need a source for; the rule is that a topic isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all until you can source an article to real third-party coverage about the topic in real newspapers or magazines or books which represents external attention being paid to the song or the band by professional journalists and/or music critics. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created Escapee (disambiguation), so:
1. Merge the content of the nominated article back to Moment Bends;
2. Move this title to Escapee (song) to preserve the edit history;
3. Redirect the moved title to the album; and
4. Move the disambiguation page to the base page name. BD2412 T 14:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't it be "Escapee (Architecture in Helsinki song)" again? There might be other songs titled "Escapee" that gain a Wikipedia article that is more popular and/or too confusing to the AiH song in the futures. noofus talk 16:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't disambiguate based on speculation that another noteworthy topic by the name might exist, or come to exist. BD2412 T 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Moment Bends, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Delete and Oppose Merge. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSONG. Without reliable sources there is nothing of value or relevance to merge. Further, a merge of this song into the album article without any RS creates an issue of WP:Undue Weight in the article on Moment Bends.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in the article now are not great, but they do at least suggest that this is the most noteworthy song on the album. BD2412 T 18:16, 24 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namify[edit]

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

See WP:ORGCRIT. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary independent sources. See lots of press release coverage and name-checks.

"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

"These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article."

Coverage that does exist corresponds to the "trivial coverage" section in WP:ORGCRIT. Please read that section in WP:ORGCRIT.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more content and a few new references. In particular these 2 new references are pretty indepth: itechpost.com and Supermonitoring.com. Dudeanc (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I would like to add to check my comments in the Talk page. Even tough couple of articles appear to be press releases, they are not actual press releases. They are original articles written either based on the available news or press releases they may have seen. A press release usually says that it is a press release and has a specific format. So these here are actually good indepth articles about the company: hostingjournalist thedomains.com/ and cloud7

In addition, please consider these additional inpdeth articles:

- isletislet.com/ - Not press release, full article about the tool

- dnjournal.com/ - Pretty indepth from well respected Domain Name publication that has been around for many years. It is one of the premier news sites for Domainers and domain/hosting news.

- studybreaks.com/ - Has 2 paragraphs info, so not just a passing mention

- hostinger.in/tutorials/ - Has 7 paragraphs of info on them and named among 9 best.

- techspotty.com/ - A very long and indepth article about them.

- shiftedmag.com/f - Talking about Namify in 4 paragraphs. Dudeanc (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the above citations, I agree that it meets notability. Several of these articles are very good. Zeddedm (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ORGCRIT per the sources provided by Dudeanc.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 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. ✗plicit 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Falls (film)[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV in RS, no reviews in noteworthy sources, except The Dove Foundation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. I’ve added reliable sources from BroadwayWorld and the Anderson Independent-Mail to further add to its notability. The Film Creator (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Anderson Independent-Mail source is WP:ROUTINE coverage of filming in the area, and the BroadwayWorld is both routine, and doesn't meet WP:NFSOURCES per Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are announcements it was going to be filmed. Did you check those same websites to see if they mentioned it again after it was completed? Dream Focus 22:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 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 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Al-Marashda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also note that this has been previously G5'd, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 17 June 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 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Steven Crafts[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources. Consists mainly of lists of works. Fails WP:NMG and WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 16 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Meitlis[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Israel. Joeykai (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major player in a top flight team, capping 165 appearances. Most of the sources are in Hebrew, גדעון מייטליס, because he played in Israel. Most of the sources are also offline or in archives that only allow partial text searches on bad OCR columns, for instance is a search for his name in the Maariv newspaper and most of them are relevant to him. He is honored as one of the team's greats.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lean towards Keep There are certainly a number of good looking hits in Hebrew searches, Govvy (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, there looks to be sufficient significant coverage to show notability. Giant Snowman 13:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I do not see any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Also, the excellent Hewiki is mum about him. Nonetheless, the emerging consensus is that Meitlis is notable. Do let me know if I missed out on anything! gidonb (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he made 165 appearances in the Israeli top flight and there are many sources about him. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: חוקרת has provided a link to potential sourcing, but there is no discussion of there is significant coverage in that newspaper. I would like to point out that the number of caps a person has at any level of professional football is no longer a policy-based reason to keep after the demise of WP:NFOOTY and it was given no weight in my read of the consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment that you won't find sources online for the 50s and 60s in Israel. What is online is items like this from 2007 that covers a ceremony honoring him before a game. To get at source from the 50s and 60s you need to search the individual newspaper archives, only some of which are open freely online, and all suffer from very bad OCR if they have OCR at all. The Maariv archive search is one newspaper that is available online, and he's there. He should also be in the other major newspapers of the 50s and 60s, but they aren't as easy to search. חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unaired Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot[edit]

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

Not notable. The pilot has never been officially released, meaning that the plot synopsis fails WP:V. The sources given are IMDb, a fansite, and a passing mention in the context of something else. I could find no better sources. Redirect contested without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is episode 0 of one of the most popular TV shows of all time, are you sure you want to bring it to AfD without a WP:BEFORE? Artw (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and all I found were clickbait listicles from unreliable sources, fandom wikis, Reddit, and bootlegs of the pilot. Nothing seemed to stem from a reliable source. Even the most popular shows get pilots, but if those pilots are not formally seen by anyone -- which this one wasn't -- then it's hard for them to build notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are "mistaken". Artw (talk)
Keep Article on Huffpost [3], Screen Rant [4] Yet another AfD nomination without a WP:BEFORE being done. So time consuming saving these types of articles from deletionists. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Screen Rant reliable, though? That looks like a clickbait listicle with no journalistic merit. Everything else I found in a WP:BEFORE looked completely unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: These two RSN discussions cast doubt on Screen Rant's reliability, with the latter loosely agreeing to my perception of Screen Rant as a "churnalism" site. WP:TVRS doesn't mention it either way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But neither discussion rules out the use of SR, as quoted, "It's a reliable source for film material and some other material", "Reliable for attributed opinion". And its just a comparison between the aired pilot and the unaired pilot (which can be verified easily by watching the unaired pilot on YouTube. SR is reliable for this article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And another article, at Mic [5] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More [[6]] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added some refs. Artw (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are "Mic" or "Screen Rant" reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this? I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't be, so yes. Artw (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not official being released means nothing, it's out there and it and the plot have been covered by sources. Huffpost above, in this book with 2/3 notable co-authors Lawrence Miles, Lars Pearson. Other books out there with minor coverage on GBooks. Gizmodo coverage. WP:GNG passes. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HuffPost, Mic, Gizmodo, and the book mentioned above together provide enough coverage and are suitably reliable for the subject area. XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As XOR'easter said, this clearly meets the general notability guidelines. So many articles like this redirected at once by the same guy, I wonder how many others could be saved by simply following WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 00:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent RS's document it in non-trivial detail. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent Reliable Sources. I'm confused by the nominator's comment "The pilot has never been officially released, meaning that the plot synopsis fails WP:V". Surely the whole point of our policies is that independent reliable sources are used and we don't just watch the episode and write a summary as this would be original research. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point? RicDod (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, never aired but analysed beyond death by reliable sources. Pikavoom ^Talk 12:58, 20 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sourced only to a catalog. Per WP:SALAT, there is no evidence that the underlying subject of "lists of people on postage stamps" is a notable one. There is no proof beyond mere catalog listings or articles about certain people that mention "oh yeah, they were also on a postage stamp". This is like saying that every name and business listed in an old phone book is worth listing just because you were able to find a copy of the phone book as a reference. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that ever existed, and in all of these similar AFDs, not a single person has given a single, policy-driven reason to keep them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lithuania. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - So if I decide the set of buildings pictured on stamps of the US is notable, and go find a complete US stamp catalog that lists all these stamps, and then cite every building on my list to the catalog, that would very an OK article? I do not think so, and I am not really convinced these lists are any different, except that the first person who thought they were a good idea acted on it by creating such a list in early 2002 instead of mid-2022, well and that person did not include any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons given in all the other stamp lists. A referenced list of stamps issued by a country is notable. This list is referenced. I also question whether picking off these lists one by one is a suitable use of anyone’s time. All of these similar articles should be discussed together in a more appropriate forum. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERX, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT. None of these are valid arguments. It's "referenced" to a stamp catalog. How do we know the catalog is accurate? What makes the list worth cataloging? Not everything has to be a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said above why I think it is notable. A stamp catalogue is a reference. A country has officially issued the stamps. That makes it notable. I’m not particularly interested in the topic personally but I also don’t think referenced lists need to be deleted or that it’s a great use of everyone’s time to respond to all of these individual deletion nominations. Give it up and start a policy discussion somewhere. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A referenced list of stamps issued by a country would be an indiscrminate list. That is not what this article is though. It is a referenced list of a sub-set of stamps issued by a country. We have no realible sources that show that this set of stamps as a group are worth creating a referenced list covering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An organized, referenced list of items issued by a specified country is quite obviously not indiscriminate. A commander's insistence that the Baltic states don't deserve coverage because Stalin illegally occupied them is just contemptible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.149.176.48 (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — 166.149.176.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Where the hell did anyone say that? Might want to lay off the WP:NPA Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your buddy Lambert says that regularly. Just yesterday he mutilated an article about the head of the Ukrainian government-in-exile in the 50s wasn't Ukrainian. He's tiresome and offensive. 166.159.112.14 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was said in another AFD has no relevance here, especially not a loaded and baseless accusation like that. Also, implying that Mr. Lambert and I are in cahoots is laughable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked that people stop referring to me as Lambert and refer to me as Mr. Lambert. No one is arguing that this list should be deleted because of Lithuanian's status at any given point. We are arguing to delete it because this type of list does not meet general principals for lists. To try to turn this into a debate about the national status of Lithuania at any given point is unacceptable. As is the attempt to bring up issues that have nothing to do with this discussion at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since everything on this list happened before 1940, we do not need to consider post-1940 events at all, so I am not sure why someone would bring them up. A countries own official listing of its own stamps would seem to be a primary source, and Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources. Anyway if the listings of all stamps are usable that would mean we would have List of all stamps of Lithuania, which we do not and this is not. This is a list of the stamps issued by Lithuania that pictured people. Why that sub set is notable, but not any other possible sub set? I still am not sure. Especially since one of the few sources that I have actually seen brought to bear on this subject mentioned some stamps showing people, and some other stamps showing places. It remains a great mystery to me, and some of the explanations fall flat. Lists have a clear set of criteria, and not every list one can find somewhere in eome publication is suitable to be copy and pasted into Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia, does not meet wP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:LISTN LibStar (talk) 07:21, 20 June 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 Loveyatri. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warina Hussain[edit]

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

Warina Hussain

Actress with one major role, who therefore does not meet acting notability guidelines. This title has been cut down to a redirect to Loveyatri, her major role, and expanded to an article several times, most recently by a sockpuppet. A review of the references shows that she also does not satisfy general notability, because they are mostly puff pieces promoting her.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	news18.com	Wishing Happy Birthday to subject, but deleted as 404	?	No	No	No
2	anandabazar.com	A promotional interview	No	Yes	N/A	No
3	indianexpress.com	Announcement about the subject	No	Yes	Probably	No
4	TimesofIndia.com	A puff piece about a video, promoting her	No	Yes	No	No
5	siasat.com	Announcement that she will make a Tollywood debut	No	Yes	Probably	No
6	koimoi.com	A puff piece about an upcoming film	No	Yes	Probably	No
7	zeenews.india.com	Another puff piece about another upcoming film	No	Yes	Probably	No
8	ndtv.com	Pre-announcement of her major 2018 film	Yes	Yes	Yes	No

As an Alternative to Deletion, the article should be cut down to a redirect to Loveyatri again, and the redirect should be given extended-confirmed protection so that a neutral editor can create an article when one of her films in progress is released. Until then, the title should be redirected. (Cutting the article down to a redirect by normal editing would only result in edit-warring.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Afghanistan, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG. And then salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect First the entire history of this article needs to be deleted. It encourages drive-by editors to restore it. It can be then redirected to Loveyatri after the history is deleted. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and 500/30 protect: as explained by nominator, the subject fails general notability guideline because of lack of significant coverage. Notability guideline for actors requires multiple significant roles in released films or TV shows, the subject fails this as well. Given the log history of this page, the newly created redirect should be extended-confirmed protected. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astraverse[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL for a planned trilogy/cinematic universe. It has only one film so far (Brahmāstra) which is not yet released. The article is made up of original research and content copied from the film article. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported across several media articles that the movie is in three parts, including confirmations from the makers. Makers have also confirmed the starting of this new cinematic universe. https://www.filmfare.com/news/bollywood/ranbir-kapoor-says-brahmastra-and-the-astraverse-is-our-own-marvel-universe-54402.html

With regards to content of the page, it is mostly original research (additional citations and reliable sources have been added). The content around a very small section of films was taken up from other sources. The same has now also been edited. Deep2701 (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion because this is way too premature to be created without any official announcements for any other parts apart from Shiva. Meryam90 (talk)

Delete, Too soon be created. Grabup (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,

When the makers (Fox Star Studios) have already officially announced it as a cinematic universe, could you help me understand why is it too soon?

Thanks. Deep2701 (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because mere announcement is not a guarantee that these films will actually be made. There is a chance that they may be cancelled or postponed, we cannot be certain about it. The topic is not notable at this point but may be notable in future if and when the second part comes out. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,

I understand your point. However, the article is about the concept of Astraverse, which is being introduced in the upcoming movie. Audiences are interested in knowing more about the concept, which has been detailed in the article with original research on Hindu Mythology.

I feel this is a concept that should be on Wikipedia, even if no further movie comes out, largely because there is inquisitiveness among audience to know more. The concept will still remain, even if no movie comes out. With regards to the movies, a studio such as Fox Star, which has already started pre-production work on other parts, doesn't seem like it will shelf such movies.

Focus should be on the fact that the article is not on the movie but the concept.

Thanks! Deep2701 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom, only a film trailer came out and we already have a franchise page, WP:TOOSOON. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:TOOSOON, 1st part of trilogy took 8 year with pre-post production and filming.to get ready for release. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:35, 19 June 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Platinum Rule (How I Met Your Mother)[edit]

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

Only two reviews, one from the long defunct TWOP. No further sources seem to exist. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 reviews is enough. Just because a site is no longer around doesn't mean that what it published is irrelevant. There are thousands of less newspapers today than, say, 1990. Do we discount everything published in a now defunct newspaper? DonaldD23 talk to me 20:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the already present two reviews, it appears to be referenced multiple times in How I Met Your Mother and Philosophy: Being and Awesomeness, ed. von Matterhorn, ISBN 9780812698350. As usual, stating a BEFORE search was done is no guarantee that other sources do not exist in relatively easy to find locations on the Internet. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added a couple of minor refs but notability already seems established. Artw (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two reviews are sufficient and more references have been added. Pikavoom ^Talk 12:59, 20 June 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. Previous deleted was G11, so soft deletion still applies. ✗plicit 14:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Fashion Week New York[edit]

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

Annual "lifestyle marketing platform" that never seemed to gain traction. Coverage is limited to a few years' of event listings. Was deleted before, so did not want to use PROD. Star Mississippi 19:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Events, Africa, and New York. Star Mississippi 19:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 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 Cyprus International Football Tournament. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Cyprus International Tournament[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:GNG. Much the same as 1998 Cyprus International Tournament, which was deleted following this discussion. No WP:ATD available. See also comments on the declined draft. Also relevant is WP:NOTDATABASE, which says merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would have thought international teams playing games would have been covered by the news media at the time for the relative countries who took part. Surely there would be news coverage for this friendly tournament, matches etc. And I suggest a redirect to Cyprus International Football Tournament (which could do with improving) if people are going to go with delete. Govvy (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Govvy. Giant Snowman 18:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm okay with redirect Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raah TV[edit]

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

Non notable media organization. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG AHatd (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Pakistan. AHatd (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search found only the occasional passing mention in the press—nothing that discusses this channel "directly and in detail". Doesn't meet the GNG or any relevant SNG, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Pazhanji[edit]

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

While we do have a function as WP:Gazetteer, we require the place to have inherent notability. My WP:BEFORE has not revealed any. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Geography, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cathedrals are generally the subject of multiple reliable sources, but some of these sources may be unavailable online. On that principle, I would keep this article. This search on Google News also helps. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to cathedrals generally being notable, this one is 500 years old and covered in Onmanorama, the Deccan Chronicle and The Hindu. Mccapra (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability as a cathedral. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per commenters above. Can be tagged for development. IMO probably all cathedrals are individually notable; at worst a cathedral might only be covered as a list-item in List of cathedrals (and then some coverage with sources should be provided at list-item, and the name should be a redirect, with suitable categories, to anchor at its list-item). Note, however, that List of cathedrals in India, which is organized by denomination and includes this one, has no details about any of its items. Many are blacklinks or redlinks. So merging info about this one cathedral to that list-article would appear to be undue coverage, so again it seems better to "Keep".--Doncram (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Cathedrals are generally notable without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cathedrals are inherently notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple reliable sources. MOSC cathedrals are inherently notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Creators Collection Cards[edit]

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

A non-notable set of collectible trading cards. There are currently no reliable sources to be found in the article. Searching for any additional sources turned up no coverage, just a few "For Sale" pages and a one-sentence entry in a Marvel fan wiki, thus it appears to fail the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mention here[7], but that is probably not enough for more than basic verification. Not finding a lot else of of use so probably delete.Artw (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my BEFORE-style search failed to uncover suitable sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:40, 23 June 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. No reason for deletion has been provided. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Patrick's Sports Academy[edit]

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

Strong Keep - Article is reliably and independently sourced with all major assertions supported. This appears a premature AfD nomination, with no attempt at fixing issues by other means (see WP:BEFORE); nominator User:Kizzyb2018 has not tried to engage with other editors via the article Talk Page or with significant contributors via their Talk pages. The rationale for the AfD (according to edit summary) of "Inaccuracies , prejudicial, links not permitted" could have been discussed before resorting to AfD - what inaccuracies? what is prejudicial (presumably non-NPOV)? and what links are not permitted? Paul W (talk) 16:48, 16 June 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 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The account Kizzyb2018 (contribs | filter log) is not even a day old and all four of its edit have been geared toward removing any mention of the sexual abuse scandal, this AfD included. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well sourced, abuse scandal is notable. May not be pleasant, but so long as it's NPOV, it should stay. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No rationale given by nominator; amply and reliably sourced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:37, 16 June 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!} 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Cool[edit]

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

Only one review and a cite in Box Office Mojo, which is not a RS. Could not find anything else online. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LA Times review in article, plus DVD Talk [8] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – with reviews in the New York Times (ProQuest 426350810), the Toronto Star (ProQuest 435582317), and Variety (ProQuest 1438477012), among others, this film clearly meets WP:NFILM/the GNG, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You realize this article has gotten more attention since being AfD'd then any other time in its sad little life? Put it out of its misery FFS. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article doesn't get a lot of traffic is no grounds for deletion. Several editors have presented valid reviews and your opinion is still to delete it. Its quite confusing why you don't agree with policy. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's still a mess! I haven't been on here very long, but I notice the same cycle playing out over and over. A skimpy article gets AfD'd; somebody finds a review or two, just enough to get a "keep close"; nothing actually gets done to the article; it sits there for a few more years until somebody notices it; lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm frustrated because it seems like rescuing articles from the evil deletionists is a higher priority than either improving them or letting them go. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several reviews have been demonstrated above. If you are so concerned, add them to the article and improve it. The state of the article is not a reason for deletion, you would know that if you read policy. This is just an essay, but why not WP:DOITYOURSELF? Fix it...don't delete it. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the people who found those reviews are welcome to add them. AfD is for when you don't think the article's worth trying to save. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that policy states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", right? See WP:NEXIST if unconvinced. AfD is for proving or disproving an article's inclusion on Wikipedia. When sources are found that don't have to be added to the article as that is not a requirement of AfD. So, if you feel so strongly about sources being added, I again say, WP:DOITYOURSELF, don't pass it off to others. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:15, 21 June 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 deleted by Ponyo (talk · contribs) as G3: Blatant hoax (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Formula 2 Championship[edit]

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

WP: TOOSOON, completely unsourced and/or plain fantasized information. Not the first time this account has created motorsport season articles just for fantasy lineups, they are clearly not WP:HTBAE H4MCHTR (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. H4MCHTR (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nissany gets a seat again? No way... This, as it stands, is a hoax; most of the time line-ups are announced in the December-January range, about 6 months from now. The calendar isn't announced either. Just too soon to have an article containing only speculations. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax made by a user who clearly didn't listen from when this was brought up at MfD as a draft in March. I agree with the nominator that the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. No comment on any references which may exist in the real world and frankly, I don't know what the precedent is for when future seasons of junior open-wheel formulae go up, but this is clearly a rouge editor living in fantasy. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:49, 16 June 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!} 18:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domsjö Fabriker[edit]

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

Tthe article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Swedish article on the company has 3 sources, including a whole book on the subject,

Nylander, Nils (1990). En basindustri blir till: Domsjö sulfitfabriks 30 första år. Bjästa: Cewe-förl. Libris 7647092. ISBN 91-7542-187-9

and a quick search finds another book,

Perstad, Emil; CeWe-förl.) (1981). Gamla Örnsköldsvik och Domsjö sulfitfabrik : människor och episoder (in Swedish). Bjästa: CeWe-förlag/CeWe-pool. ISBN 91-7542-051-1. OCLC 186338857.

Together with the source already in the article, this certainly establishes notability. I'd point out that the Swedish Wikipedia article is far more substantial than the English one, with a further image also. Other sources include

Environmental adaptation, technology development and competition by Ann-Kristin Bergquist and Kristina Söderholm; the 28-page paper "examine[s] how a single individual mill, the sulphite pulp producer, Domsjö sulphite mill with its company MoDo, on a long term basis adapted to the transformation pressure from increasing international competition and national environmental regulation during the 1960s to the 1990s."

In short, the Domsjö sulphite mill is immediately seen to be notable. I observe that nom for this AfD has also nominated several other industrial articles, claiming all of them lack CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. If those nominations are anything like as poorly researched as this one evidently was, it would be as well for all of them to be withdrawn, with more attention to WP:BEFORE in future. But perhaps this one article was nominated in error. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Chiswick Chap that this is the natural home of any updates about the mill, which is significant and has been running since 1903. I've added a few simple sources to the article, expanding it somewhat. //Julle (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a significant industrial plant with a long history, now updated to demonstrate this. As for depth there is a dozen books available in swedish libraries detailing parts of the plant's history (or that of its immediate surroundings), so there's opportunity for further expansion. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per all of the above. ChristinaNY (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Chiswick Chap. Tomas e (talk) 12:04, 20 June 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!} 18:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Wilson (physician)[edit]

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

This is an orphan article about a physician with no sources beyond biographical pages from various medical centers he's worked at; no independent coverage, as far as I can tell, and the article has been sitting like this for eight years Meelar (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Likely violates either WP:AB or WP:FCOI. Its principal author is Georgedocument (contribs | filter log), who does not seem to contribute to anything else besides. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable anesthesiologist. also likely COI Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:PROF and does not have significant independent coverage. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. I've not seen any significant reviews of his work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for deletion, but if his role as CMO in a relatively well-known medical device manufacturer (Masimo) might contribute relevance, he should be redirected. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for deletion.Signal Crayfish (talk) 13:30, 20 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatil[edit]

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

Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. The existing references mostly fails WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Bangladesh. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. 2A01:4C8:1C00:3884:A196:1239:C503:533 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources 1 and 2.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sources must meet NCORP guidelines in order to count towards notability - multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", is defined as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In order to count towards notability, references cannot rely entirely solely on information provided by the company, including quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc.

Your first reference, The Daily Star is a profile of the chairman and managing director and the last section is about the general furniture market. There is no "Independent Content" and this reference fails ORGIND.
The second reference from TBS fails for the same reason. All the information is provided by the company and I cannot identify any "Independent Content" that (a) is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the company and (b) meets CORPDEPTH.

Neither of those sources meet NCORP guidelines for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with the following sources.
- Karmakar, Suvankar (15 January 2020). "বৈশ্বিক ব্র্যান্ডের পথে বাংলাদেশের হাতিল". Prothom Alo (in Bengali).
- Noyon, Abbas Uddin (25 January 2020). "From timber shop to going global". The Business Standard.
- Hasan, Mahmudul (13 May 2019). "Hatil brings robot carpenters". The Daily Star.
- Chakma, Jagaran (2 September 2021). "Hatil: from an idea to an established brand". The Daily Star.
- Irani, Bilkis (11 January 2020). "Hatil wants to expand globally". Dhaka Tribune.
- Rahman, Arifur (5 November 2021). "আসবাব নিয়ে বিশ্বে". Prothom Alo (in Bengali).
- Uddin, Saif (14 May 2019). "Hatil continues to widen global presence". The Financial Express.
- "Hatil opens virtual showroom". The Daily Star. 10 January 2018.

There are several more sources in the article and many Bengali language sources which can be found on Google. Gorlono (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss sourcing Gorlono IDed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Greer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Trivial mentions in reliable sources, significant coverage about his non-profit research group rather than the subject himself. Other sources cover what he has said in his expert capacity as an ufologist, rather than information about the subject. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.Greer has a lot of very important and relevant information to pass on. This site should not be deleted. This man has spent most of his adult life in the pursuit of freedom of information and to support free energy for all and peace.This man should be applauded not deleted. 92.30.204.99 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. We need reliable citations to prove he is Wikipedia notable. Sgerbic (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "relevant info he's trying to pass on", the US Navy already released cockpit videos of the mystery "tic tacs" they couldn't identify. That's been news now for a year or two. Regardless, this fellow has no reliable sources on which to base a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he could be a fraud I signed up for his app. and it did not work and I could not get any help with it. I got ripped off! 216.24.45.9 (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What app, he's a ufo truther? Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia I am looking for information on Dr. Greer..here we have it Thank you! Quit the LEFT SLANT AND JUST LET US READ AND DETERMINE FOR OURSELVES THE RELEVANCE! 207.183.175.91 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please update with reliable sources and we'll keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple refs providing significant coverage, including: The first three refs, New Yorker (2021), Yoga Journal (1989), and Outside (1994). The BBC News (2001) ref, as pointed out in the second AfD for this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is a better direction because deleting may appear as an attempt to cover up the message and the work. 71.172.184.122 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to cover up, the US Navy has proven UFO's are a "thing". His "message" isn't news, we already know. This fellow has no reliable sources on which to base an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. You need to familiarize yourself with what the nominator is saying and Wikipedia's notability policies, such as the WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – besides numerous references, the subject has a significant amount of authority control identifiers. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need reliable references, self-published works and press-releases aren't suitable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources that come up are press-releases. Non-notable as a physician either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A subarticle was merged/redirected to this BLP article since the sources were rare and new updates were lacking. On the other hand, the sources appear sufficient for the main BLP article to exist. Some of the sources also appear to be prominently about Greer, like [9]. —Paleo Neonate – 06:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hipal and PaleoNeonate. Subject clearly meets notability guidelines. Jusdafax (talk) 22:33, 22 June 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!} 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anirudh Iyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE checks; sources in article lack significant coverage of the subject, if they mention the subject at all. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG per nom. Also, looking at his imdb profile, it seems like most of the works he is "known" for, he was only an assistant director. ~XyNq^t_c 15:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches didn't find any significant coverage of Jani in independent reliable sources. He thus fails the GNG. BrutBrother (talk) 04:15, 17 June 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. While a lot of the coverage of the subject is for one event, there are strong arguments that there is substantial coverage of the subject. The arguments on both sides have merit. I relisted the debate to see if consensus would emerge to move or redirect the article, but I don't see any new convergence in the debate. Malinaccier (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michel von Tell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; no notability demonstrated, passing mentions/owned media or press releases. He plays poker. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, News media, and Motorsport. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only coverage here that appears reliably sourced is of the Harley LiveWire run (see e.g., 1 2). Alexandermcnabb - I get that this may be a WP:1E situation but it would be good to have your explanation of why the LiveWire run coverage is not enough to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it does establish notability! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The example [1] above shows perfectly the library images (referred to below) used to illustrate the web-article - quite unconnected with the alleged-event, just to jazz it up (photographers Werk, Alessio Barbanti, Jason Critchell and Josh Kurpius - these all Google).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did this Translation. I asked Admin Ipigott before and he also checked the article when it was done. Also some other Users helped to make it better. Article is part of many other WP. I cant do as much right now because I am in holiday. The source you asked for is allready in. The first one is the most long version I guess.

1 https://www.inmoto.it/news/curiosita/2020/03/26-2874582/l_impresa_1720_km_in_24_ore_su_harley-davidson_livewire/
2 Blick is the biggest swiss Newspaper https://www.blick.ch/auto/news_n_trends/harley-davidson-livewire-schweizer-faehrt-weltrekord-auf-elektrotoeff-id15818340.html
3 EN CNBC https://www.hotcars.com/the-future-is-here-electric-motorcycles-you-can-buy-today/
4 EN https://www.greencars.com/post/harley-davidsons-livewire-ev
5 Magazin from Liechtenstein https://www.lie-zeit.li/2020/06/zu-besuch-beim-weltmeister-in-der-villa-turm/
6 Bigest media outlet of latin america https://www.emol.com/noticias/Autos/2020/03/24/980873/HarleyDavidson-Livewire-record-moto-elctrica.html
7 Austria Magazin https://www.motorrad-magazin.at//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt
8 Magazin Hungary https://onroad.hu/2020/03/25/harley-davidson-livewire-tura-1600-kilometer-24-ora-alatt/
9 Netherlands https://www.autowereld.com/artikelen/id/29028/zwitser-rijdt-1723-kilometer-in-24-uur-op-elektrische-harley-davidson
10 German News https://motorzeitung.de/news.php?newsid=632592

High media. Also this guy is a filmmaker, his podcast is in a top 100 who is who list, he was part of some international Rally's and and Races and so on. Watch the ref links. Do you don't like green Mobility? If so, you maybe interested in delet also the other article i wrote. Rafael de Mestre. There is much less/weak sources. NicitaX (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is sufficiently sourced from newspaper accounts in German and French, in addition to interviews and videos. His record is widely covered internationally. The sources mentioned above are adequate but many more could be found.--Ipigott (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - The only one of the above references that doesn't just seem to be coverage of the LiveWire run is the interview in Lie-Zeit, but interviews don't establish notability as the content is not independent of the source. If the Harley Davidson LiveWire distance run is the only thing that Tell is notable for, then isn't this really an instance of WP:BIO1E and isn't this best covered under LiveWire (motorcycle)? FOARP (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously, when a (non-English first speaking) new editor - who turned out to have 17 confirmed aliases - came to En Wiki to promote a European gentleman. From memory, all of the European sources were minor websites with content created from press releases by the subject of the article (nothing like Das Motorrad).
"Michel didn’t pay the hefty fee to Guinness World Records to validate his claimed record, but does have signed witness statements". (My name is Mark Hinchliffe and I am the founder of Motorbike Writer). {Initial link ref as added to the article by Ipigott)
I only learned of churnalism this year, but I knew what it was. They claimed a World Record - they did not set anything - being entirely un-observed by any recognisable accreditation body. Moreover, there were no candid images - all of the sources used previously (likely the same as now) hosted library images, some with links to the photographer; and this guy is a film-maker???? Where are the images? GoPros? People with iPhones? A bit early for drones. I did extensive research previously - but I probably don't have the same access to certain European websites after Brexit. This new editor knew where/how to find the redirect and convert it into an En article 'by the back door', by copying from European Wikis, where the requirements are less stringent; there must be a wiki-name for it? Something ending in *****washing?

The Dutch version was established by the same (En-blocked) individual on 23 September 2020, followed by the Italian version on 6 October 2020. They were both from the En version, 3 Sept 2020. Bit of circular going on here.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot speak to the accuracy of all of the above but this is clearly a case of WP:BLP1E since the only sources that even look legit are coverage of a single incident (the distance-run on the Harley Davidson LiveWire). This incident is already covered in sufficient detail at LiveWire (motorcycle). Nothing that resembles reliable, independent sourcing covers any other aspect of Michel von Tell's life. This page does look very much like an undeclared COI creation given the way in which the creator was blocked for sock-puppetry. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is similar to what's happening with Draft:Mario Kleff where the CoI SPAs were blocked and a series of promotional articles mainly deleted, then along comes another new registration, one-hour later trying to re-create exactly the same hommage to a German engineer who is well known in, and very important to, the Thai town of Pattaya. After writing this I've just checked to find the 'new' author was blocked 29 days ago.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not new. It exist for years. It just was a redirect. Because it was to short. I saw this while my work at Eco Grand Prix article. So i created the missing red link Rafael de Mestre. Later I expand this article here. I did not create this article. It was already blue here. As redirect. So I expanded this based on a translation and add new additional informations. The Grand Prix and some new sources and new interviews. After this was done it was longer and we had a stand alone. I also showed the result to an Admin an it was ok to him. As Ipigott correctly said. There are tons of sources. I found over 100 articles from all over the world. Several videos, movies, podcasts and interviews over a period of 20 years! Just here you will find 50 ref links of global reporting. https://schweiz.fandom.com/de/wiki/Michel_von_Tell

For example, 2 detailed interviews on 2 different topics from 2 different continents. United States

https://www.greencars.com/post/24-hour-eco-grand-prix-race-at-nurburgring

Europe

https://www.lie-zeit.li/2020/06/zu-besuch-beim-weltmeister-in-der-villa-turm/

The record is out of question and is well documented. Even is some patrol-heads are not particularly informed or do not want to be informed. Supposedly it is not in the Guinness book. However, they provide with no evidence for this and just say so. Also everybody should know that most motorsport and big records are not in this book from this private beer company. That's because this book doesn't collect records! It usually only lists simple records of private people. Their customers who paid them. You can read about it on their website. Of course, you don't need this private beer company to set an official record. Who on earth really believes that??? :) To do a record you need a record and receipts. Proof! Normal people often can't just call the press, so they use this way. Formula 1 - Nasa - Nescar - WRC and all others don't need or do this. They don't need this Company cause they have other ways.They do it professionally with observers and press. Which is significantly more credible than a simple GB entry. Same here. The record was set in companion of a team - plus spectators - plus six independent judges from 3 countries who observed it - PLUS the local press - they certified the record. That's why hundreds of newspaper and media editors and encyclopedia editors worldwide say it is. No room for theories of individuals (patrolheads). Here you can read more about the process in an big Austrian Magazine for example. From the area where it happened.

https://www.motorrad-magazin.at//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt

Also not just one source like normal in WP but far from more then 10! Completely different - different content - different countries - from leading outlets

Poland Leading Media https://www.motocaina.pl/artykul/mamy-nowy-rekord-dystansu-przejechanego-elektrycznym-motocyklem-44547.html
Germany Leading Media https://web.archive.org/web/20200324111331/https://www.bikeundbusiness.de/e-bike-weltrekord-vier-laender-und-1723-kilometer-a-915844/
Switzerland Nr 1 Media https://www.blick.ch/auto/news_n_trends/harley-davidson-livewire-schweizer-faehrt-weltrekord-auf-elektrotoeff-id15818340.html
Asia https://naikmotor.com/147660/rekor-harley-davidson-livewire-24jam-capai-1-723-km
Latin america Nr1 Media https://www.emol.com/noticias/Autos/2020/03/24/980873/HarleyDavidson-Livewire-record-moto-elctrica.html
Netherlands Leading Media https://www.autowereld.com/artikelen/id/29028/zwitser-rijdt-1723-kilometer-in-24-uur-op-elektrische-harley-davidson
Germany Leading Media https://motorzeitung.de/news.php?newsid=632592
Italia Leading Media https://www.inmoto.it/news/curiosita/2020/03/26-2874582/l_impresa_1720_km_in_24_ore_su_harley-davidson_livewire/
Liechtenstein Leading Media https://www.lie-zeit.li/2020/06/zu-besuch-beim-weltmeister-in-der-villa-turm/
USA CNBC https://www.hotcars.com/the-future-is-here-electric-motorcycles-you-can-buy-today/
https://www.greencars.com/post/harley-davidsons-livewire-ev

I already posted 20 or 30 totally different. And there are even much more. Thats why the record is already listed in WP for Years in lifewire article.

Just one of this 2 points is good for full WP Notability. 1 a lot of press coverage all over the world. Permanently - on many subjects. 2 world record.

Easily meets WP:NMOTORSPORT (9) & WP:ANYBIO (3) & (2) This alone would suffice for 200%-300%. Sourced by more then 30 great different sources. Global! Not just national as needed! Surrounded by Interviews, Videos and Podcasts. But although this would be enough twice, there are many more points.

A)According to point 2 AND 3 WP:NCOLLATH (hall of fame) , performance in amateur sports. Everybody is notable if he has national reporting or is in one of national top Positions! This was even achieved not in one but in 5 different areas. Even in 5! Poker- Rally- Grand Prix - Baseball - Motorcycle. Often even with global instead of the required national reporting. Hall of Fame. He is ranked 70th in his country's Poker Hall of Fame. According to HendonMob and International Poker Database. Just this would be enough again to gives notability 5 times again. B) WRC Rally Driver in international races.Place 6 - WP:NMOTORSPORT C) Part of the E Grand Prix with global coverage. WP:NMOTORSPORT and or WP:NCOLLATH (national press needed - also here it got global - see ref ) D) Made a documentary (film) with a very prominent partner Peter Scholl Latour. Mentioned on Imdb - global press - and on the official Swiss Filmmakers' website. Swiss Films. WP:NFILM & WP:ANYBIO (3) & (2) E) Entertainer: A podcast with 10 million views - with international press and featured in the who is who top 100 list at number 30 of 5 countries in Top Magazine. Circulation 400,000, Europe's largest Lifestyle Magazine. WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER & WP:ANYBIO (3) & (2)

He also appears to performed at the Terrazza Festival. The mayor festival for electronic music in in Zurich with more then 20,000 people. Also appears to be involved in the Frank Jordan book project with bestselling writer Hausammann. He is named under her Wikipedia picture and quote on website. I'll research that after my vacation.

It has also an entry in numerous standard national biographical dictionarys. For example at Swiss Films (main government dictionary of important swiss film people ) or in Austria. Enycl. run in cooperation from gov. and Tech University Graz.See HERE WP:ANYBIO (3). As well as in 10 other WP internationally. So 50 other WP Authors and Admins from all over the world checked it.

So Admin Ipigott is absolutely correct if he says - the article is sufficiently sourced, Plus: there are 10 other points that are clear and unequivocal. So Clearly

Keep:

Seems like we got some petrolheads here and in some not noteabal blogs who just don't like e-mobility in general. This cant be a reason at all to attack it. E-mobility, new energy and climate change is one of the mayor and most important problems of our time! Sadly. Therefore, basically every article that supports this is particularly VERY important and valuable. And this article clearly exceeds the minimum requirements BY FAR in many different ways same time. And like said at beginning. The article is not new. It has been online for years. It was just expanded. NicitaX (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those links is about the LiveWire distance run (or is an interview that cannot be used to sustain notability), which is already covered on the page related to the LiveWire. NicitaX, please give WP:BLP1E a read and tell us how an article is justified in this case. FOARP (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ipigott. Subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Without a detailed source analysis of each reference, arguments of BLP1E are not convincing.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I initially closed this as keep [10], I was convinced via a discussion to relist this AFD and request additional discussion around the proposal to merge/redirect the article to LiveWire (motorcycle) per WP:BLP1E.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the information is already covered in another article, I don't see how duplicating it here helps. Nothing of substance found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The afd was over! The decision was KEEP! http://web.archive.org/web/20220616075244/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_6#Michel_von_Tell

It is absolutely illegal to just start a new one! Other than that, there was no new argument, or any argument at all. It is simply repeat the conspiracy theory of the petrol heads. Nowhere the Newspapers say this! Neither does it say anything about "Tell say anything" or about any "friends". Not appear there. Just in the imagination of some Patrol-heads who don't stop to just say this here!

Like user @4meter4:recognized correctly. He seems to be one of just a few neutral users here in this "debate" besides the two admins who voted for Keep till now. Thanks for being this clever to not just take a quick look and fall in this trap! And for reading all this many stuff I had to write and research against this simply thrown in conspiracy theory's. The Theorys of a group of friends witch spend sooo much energy here to even try to influence privately an admin AFTER the AfD was done. After 10 days of debate!!!! Nearly double as much then intended!!!

The sources and Newspapers say - a record was made. End. Everything else is just a made up conspiracy theory from 1-2 patrol heads. In addition, you can even read about how the record was officially done. Observed by reporters and independent judges witch officially documented it! In this article it is told more detailed by mayor Austrian Magazine. https://www.motorrad-magazin.at//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt

(Pls use google translator to read in English) This link should do.

https://www-motorrad--magazin-at.translate.goog//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Also here you have 10 mayor Newspapers witch ALL say - there is a record!! None of them say something about Tell "claimed" it or he say something at all. None of them says something about any friends. NOTHING. They all say by them self. We got a record! END!

*  Poland Leading Media

https://www.motocaina.pl/artykul/mamy-nowy-rekord-dystansu-przejechanego-elektrycznym-motocyklem-44547.html

 * Germany Leading Media

https://web.archive.org/web/20200324111331/https://www.bikeundbusiness.de/e-bike-weltrekord-vier-laender-und-1723-kilometer-a-915844/

*  Switzerland Nr 1 Media

https://www.blick.ch/auto/news_n_trends/harley-davidson-livewire-schweizer-faehrt-weltrekord-auf-elektrotoeff-id15818340.html

*  Asia https://naikmotor.com/147660/rekor-harley-davidson-livewire-24jam-capai-1-723-km
  Latin America Nr1 Media

https://www.emol.com/noticias/Autos/2020/03/24/980873/HarleyDavidson-Livewire-record-moto-elctrica.html

 * Netherlands Leading Media

https://www.autowereld.com/artikelen/id/29028/zwitser-rijdt-1723-kilometer-in-24-uur-op-elektrische-harley-davidson

  * Germany Leading Media https://motorzeitung.de/news.php?newsid=632592
  Italia Leading Media

https://www.inmoto.it/news/curiosita/2020/03/26-2874582/l_impresa_1720_km_in_24_ore_su_harley-davidson_livewire/

 * Liechtenstein Leading Media https://www.lie-zeit.li/2020/06/zu-besuch-beim-weltmeister-in-der-villa-turm/
  * USA CNBC https://www.hotcars.com/the-future-is-here-electric-motorcycles-you-can-buy-today/
  * https://www.greencars.com/post/harley-davidsons-livewire-ev

No room for a debate!

Furthermore, 10 other clear and unambiguous reasons were given. Regardless of the record the the article is also noteworthy in many other way. clearly and easy met the WP notable rules. This is just wiped away by these patrol-heads. Like it doesn't exist. They just try to frame again there is only the record an nothing else. Why? Because obviously their goal seams to be to get rid of the article. Whatever it takes.

These points listed above and are based on fixed rules. They give no room for a debate! Successful athlete in 5 areas: Rally - Poker - Eco Grand Prix - Baseball - Motorcycle with national and global press.

Media maker in a national Hall of Fame - In some international directories and encyclopedias etc etc are not debatable. WP:NCOLLATH (2&3) Amateur Sport - Hall of fame and national Press. We got this 5 times - in 5 different areas. Most even with GLOBAL press. All 5 of them by itself make notable!!! The rules say clearly. Anyone who fulfills ONE of these points is notable - done! This article meets 10 of this points. Made a documentary (film) with a very prominent partner Peter Scholl-Latour. Mentioned on Imdb - global press and listed official Swiss government website Swiss Films.ch. WP:NFILM & WP:ANYBIO (3) & (2) Entertainer: A podcast with 10 million views - with international press and featured in Top Magazin listed number 30 of 100 in the "who is who" of 5 countries (central Europe). One of the biggest Lifestyle Mags of Europe with 400 000 circulation. Fits AGAIN WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER & WP:ANYBIO (3) & (2) without room for debate something.

It has also an entry in numerous standard national biographical dictionary's. For example at SwissFilms (main government dictionary of important swiss film people ) or in Austria. Encyclopedia. Run in cooperation with Austrian gov. and Tech University Graz. See below von tell:0 HERE. Created by Professor Dr. Dr. h. c. mult. Hermann Maurer https://austria-forum.org/af/User/Hermann Maurer. As well as in 10 other WP internationally. So 50 other WP Admins all over the world checked it. Also this alone is the next stand alone point witch makes notable without any room for any debate.WP:ANYBIO (3) And it goes on and on. 10 points witch are all given. Every single of them spendt notability for itself and without room for debate.

We should follow the rules of Wikipedia and not the simplistic opinion of some patrol-heads. The AfD was CLOSED with KEEP and that's with a good reason. So its over without the possibility of just start a new one. And sure not by privately influencing an admin and just throw in the same untrue conspiracy theories again! Or you want to do this again and again till this patrol heads get the vote result they want? That is against ALL rules! What is going on here? Is extremely unfair, questionable and dishonest. Does not violate one WP rule but directly several!

I don't blame the admin who did this. I guess he just was in a hurry and just believe this is a neutral true point. Apparently he was manipulated by a group of patrol heads working as a team to prevent the article. But that's not how it works. A consensus is neither necessary nor is it legal to just restart an AfD after it was ended. There is often no consensus. If you wait for a consensus in the Biden or Trump article you would never get an article! Notability is not based on consensus. Its based on WP rules! If one of the required criteria is met - then 100 users can say delete and it still has to stay!

This article is certainly not about Michael Jackson but for the minimum requirements it fits EASILY. All of you know! There are way more sources then in most other small articles. Just watch the category world record holders. Every second of them just got 1-2 weak source for a "strange" funny kids record. Like longest hair or longest fingernails or something. Some examples? Here you go: Xie Qiuping Shridhar Chillal Austin Vince. This article here has 1-2 good sources for every single line!! Most of them from mayor media of many country's about diff rent topics and over a period of 20 years! Just the fact of the many global media write about this guy make the article notable.

Surprisingly, no one takes action against the article about Rafael de Mestre. It was created at the same time this one was expanded. Although there is by far weaker sources and supporting documents then in this article. As in most other articles. But no one cares. AND This article here passed the AfD already - so its over!

I ask all neutral observers to support me in this pls! One small user alone is helpless against a Team that seems to try to assert personal interests or sensitivities against the person or the green topic. For whatever reason.

Please don't let them manipulate WP. The debate was not neutral from the beginning. It was won and it cant start again and again. What happens here is not right and is against all WP rules! I lost a lot of time on researching all this and try to defend the article against this patrol heads and their 3 line theories. I am shocked what is possible if 2-3 Friends just throw around some dirt! 100 mayor newspapers are worthless if 1-3 WP Friends just spread some theory's. I really hope some normal (neutral) people will help me to stop this witch hunt soon! Special cause "new green mobility" and climate change is special important and a mayor problem of our time. Its really disgusting and a shame to WP if this rule breaking manipulating crusade against this article by some patrol heads finally works!

AfD was done and it was KEEP - also I showed 10 points why a debate was nonsense from the beginning. Its easy to see the article meets SOME - not debatable notability points - of the WP RULES! Not 1 as needed but 10!

http://web.archive.org/web/20220616075244/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_6#Michel_von_Tell NicitaX (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it illegal? We've seen articles come for discussion in AfD 3 times. If you feel the de Maestra article should also be deleted, please nominate it. We're here to discuss it with the community. Feel free to join us. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also looked in French GNews, being in Switzerland, I would expect to find something about him. Zero sources in French either. Still a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can feel WP:SNOW coming, based on the length of this discussion so far. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And so the rants have begun and here....all things come to he who waits. These are not the 'work' of a newbie. I cannot see how any non-notable European self-proclaiming a world record with no evidence would be of interest in the English language Wikipedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NicitaX, please calm down. While you and I are in agreement about the notability of this topic, the lengthy diatribe you wrote above is not going to have a convincing impact. On the contrary, it's only likely to turn other editors off and create more delete votes. Please follow WP:CIVIL and state your opinions without personal attacks. You are not doing yourself any favors or convincing anyone with this sort of behavior. Please WP:Assume Good Faith and realize that everyone is here to improve wikipedia even if we are not always in agreement. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I gave up reading it after the first few sentences. What is he claiming, that this guy set a record and people are lying about it or covering it up? Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it starts again. NO arguments at all from the patrol head pack. Just POV - conspiracy theories - and cheap talking - against 100 newspaper articles. And ONE newspaper is much more worth then this. This guy from the article says or claim nothing all. You just say so. 100 Newspapers say there is a record. You are the one with the claims conspiracy theories. I show you again.

https://www.motorrad-magazin.at//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt

(Translator to read in English) This link should do.

https://www-motorrad--magazin-at.translate.goog//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Also here you have a small selection of mayor Newspapers again.witch ALL say - there is a record!! Because you seam to have huge problems to understand this. :) None of them say something about Tell "claimed" it or he say something at all. None of them says something about any friends. NOTHING. They all say by them self. We got a record!

Poland Leading Media

https://www.motocaina.pl/artykul/mamy-nowy-rekord-dystansu-przejechanego-elektrycznym-motocyklem-44547.html

https://www.autowereld.com/artikelen/id/29028/zwitser-rijdt-1723-kilometer-in-24-uur-op-elektrische-harley-davidson

Germany Leading Media https://motorzeitung.de/news.php?newsid=632592
German second http://www.genussmaenner.de/aid=65029.phtml
Italia Leading Media
Austria
USA CNBC HotCars

2 continents 2 Interviews 2 different years 2 different topics USA https://www.greencars.com/post/24-hour-eco-grand-prix-race-at-nurburgring

Europe https://www.lie-zeit.li/2020/06/zu-besuch-beim-weltmeister-in-der-villa-turm/

And again. The patrol head conspiracy team - without any arguments - facts or anything. Try to ignore all the 1000 SOURCED reasons for the record and the the 10 other 10 points why he is notable. Even if 2 Admins and some other users already explained 100 times. All delet votes nothing in it that just even close to an argument.. Just bla bla. No one is interested in your personal point of view. In your Theories or your personal point of view or your hate against green technology or something. WP works with good sources. With nothing else! You just had thin air. POV. You just make a fool of yourself by repeating the same "not argument" cospiracy theorie and POV over and over again. And show 1 demonstrating to have nothing then thin air 2 you are not at all interested in a real debate - not neutral and highly personally motivated. Else you made your point once and not return 20 times with the same nothing. We had 10 well SOURCED arguments why this person is notable and hits not 1 but 10 DIFFERENT WP guidelines in 5 to 10 different topics - beside the proven record. And every child sees that. And that's why not 1 but 2 Admins already said GO - and END the debate already with a keep decision! http://web.archive.org/web/20220616075244/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_6#Michel_von_Tell NicitaX (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can provide a brief explanation as to what your point is exactly? Too much info above, I think your point got lost in the noise. Oaktree b (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Everything above is still just about the LiveWire run and/or an interview (i.e., not an independent source). All of the relevant information is on the LiveWire article page. Delete or redirect to LiveWire (motorcycle) it is. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am away presently with weak wifi (reminiscent of dial-up speeds, but it improves around midnight). I was first involved in motorcycles 58 years ago and it has never been possible to self-claim a world record without evidence - this is normally direct involvement of an accredited lead body, such as FIM for motorcycle racing records, with the AMA being not ratified for 'world', only US. For a comparison, search 'Electric Terry' (Terry Hershner) - I can't get into these general search returns, as the images/embedded adverts are not loading. The rants above are continuing, as in last sequence, (per deny no other remarks here). There are not even any images or video for v Tell, is ridiculous IMO considering he is accoladed as a filmmaker. All of the fringe, mostly-European websites that were mooted before/now are simply churnalism, ie., regurgitated press releases. There is an urgency, an insistence from this new user, mirroring the past.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to see how this turns out, this is the longest AfD I've been involved with. Not so much for the decision, but the sheer output of the discussion involved, it's so passionate. Oaktree b (talk) 02:41, 23 June 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 23:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Seminary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most info is about its parent The Banner talk 13:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't really find anything that gets this to pass GNG. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to reference things either by the organisation itself or closely related to it. See WP:ORGSIG. ~XyNq^t_c 15:02, 16 June 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 Driving under the influence#United Kingdom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DR10[edit]

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

This is an article generally pertaining to drink driving, however relates extremely specifically to a licence code of “DR10”, a code added to one’s driving licence in the U.K. should they be convicted of drink driving.

The content does not really expand on what can be found elsewhere and relates to an extremely specific topic.

Only has one reference   Kadzi   (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that an article would be justified about drink driving laws in the UK, but this seems to be an overly technical title under which to have it. Is there another article about the subject? I can see none linked at drunk driving or driving under the influence. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything relevant to Driving_under_the_influence#United_Kingdom. If this section were to become too large, there is no reason not to follow Phil Bridger's suggestion of writing a more detailed article about drink driving laws in the UK specifically, but at the moment I don't see that it would be. Elemimele (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Driving_under_the_influence#United_Kingdom. Furthermore, looking at List of UK driving licence endorsements, DR10 seems to be the only endorsement with its own article, despite it not being very stand out among the other endorsements. ~XyNq^t_c 15:10, 16 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Springs Christian Schools[edit]

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

~~Almost no coverage by independent reliable sources, and the only ref available is no longer verifiable (I'm getting Error 500). Tube·of·Light 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)~~ Current state of sourcing is accceptable, so now, I believe that the article should be kept. Tube·of·Light 01:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Colorado. Tube·of·Light 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find secondary sources myself; can't redirect to school district because this is a private school. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: the school k-12 has maybe 862 students and has been around for some 50 years. links describing it include https://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=6283 (finances) Rabey, Steve (2022-05-01). "Colorado Springs Christian Schools celebrates 50 years". Colorado Springs Gazette. Retrieved 2022-06-11.. It is part of Association of Christian Schools International --Erp (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one news article about the school. If there is "enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any American secondary school", please provide the links. Plus, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, so the "as with any American secondary school" doesn't make sense. Tube·of·Light 15:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NEXIST sources only have to exist. They do not have to be in the article. They do not have to be online. My point is that it is virtually impossible that an American (or British or Canadian or Australian etc) secondary school will not have enough sources available to pass GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there are sources, those sources should be listed. We can't keep an article because "it is virtually impossible that an American (or British or Canadian or Australian etc) secondary school will not have enough sources available to pass GNG" unless someone actually finds the relevant articles. Tube·of·Light 01:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're basically just saying you don't like a guideline! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely incorrect, Necrothesp. I am saying that since you never listed any sources, you failed to prove that the article subject even satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NEXIST. Tube·of·Light 14:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per —Necrothesb. And in this case are the schools, plural, effectively a school district? In which case even more solid "Keep". -Doncram (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, unless someone provides enough sources, an article can not be kept. Please provide sources. Tube·of·Light 06:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be a single school. BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:NSCHOOL, all schools must satisfy WP:NORG, WP:GNG, or both. Arguments that they are presumed notable must be discounted as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. So far, it appears the only WP:GNG complaint source is this one from the Gazette, and even it only just meets the requirement, as most of the coverage is not independent of the subject - has anyone been able to find more? BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not just one school As point of fact, it is a school district or like that. Colorado Springs Christian Schools (per http://www.cscslions.org/ ):
- has a "Colorado Springs Campus" / K-12 / 4855 Mallow Road Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719.599.3553
- has a "Woodland Park Campus / K-8 / 1003 Tamarac Parkway
- CSCS was named a National Blue Ribbon School (whatever that is) in 2010
- CSCS is a 501c3

Also, per Google maps, Colorado Springs Christian Schools includes

- a middle school at 4845 Mallow Rd.
- a Colorado Springs Christian High School at 4825 Mallow Rd.

This is a school district, IMO, and as that plus being a charitable nonprofit with reporting requirements there will exist substantial coverage, in addition to high school sports reporting level stuff. Performing wp:BEFORE is a requirement or recommendation before nominating articles for deletion; the nominator mentions searching and implies that reliable sources do exist ("almost no coverage by independent reliable sources' -> they did find some coverage). --Doncram (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sufficiently notable (and I've searched). Probably merge into the Colorado Springs, Colorado article section on education. Perhaps expand the current list item there with a short description, e.g., "A PreK–12th grade Christian school started in 1972 and with an enrollment of 744 in 2016". The same should probably happen for most of the other schools on the private list (with a couple of exceptions like Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind which is notable in my quick opinion and Hilltop Baptist School which no longer exists and never notable so should be dropped from the list). --Erp (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is now ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilltop Baptist School, where discussion has developed that Hilltop Baptist School is in fact notable. Scandal there, enrollment drop, and closure might relate to enrollment increases at Colorado Springs Christian Schools. Also in general CHCS enrollment increases documented in some sources (I forget which ive seen) deserve coverage in this article. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit financial info: Continuing, it is a school district with revenues of $8,716,551 and assets of $10,949,710, as easily available from the main source on nonprofit financials, www.guidestar.org, which is free to all for use (requires opening a free account). Form 990s are available immediately online for 2019, 2018, 2017 filings (about 2018, 2017, 2016 fiscal years). From the 2019 one, the required brief description of the organization’s mission is:
COLORADO SPRINGS CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS (CSCS) IS A COLORADO NONPROFIT CORPORATION WHICH EXISTS TO PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION FROM A BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE FOR LIFELONG SERVICE CSCS WAS FOUNDED IN 1971 OUT OF THE NEED FOR BIBLECENTERED EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN FAMILIES CSCS SEEKS TO BE AN EXTENSION OF THE HOME AND THE CHURCH, PROVIDING A MEASURE OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING INPUT INTO THE LIFE OF THE CHILD CSCS SERVES THE HOME AND THE CHURCH IN THE REALM OF CHRISTIAN CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS IN ACADEMIC, PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL AREAS THE SCHOOLS HAVE PROGRAMS FOR KINDERGARTEN THROUGH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.
Typical sports type reporting found easily by Google searching "Colorado Springs Christiann High School" in "news" category:
- "Elle Stevens brings home 3200-meter win for Colorado Springs Christian, adds to Lion legacy", by Luke Zahlmann, May 22, 2022 in the Pulitzer prize-winning Colorado Springs Gazette
- Mentions in Colorado State Track Meet Day 3 Results in Denver Post
- etc. --Doncram (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feature type article: Colorado Springs Christian Schools celebrates 50 years, by Steve Rabey, May 1, 2022 in Colorado Springs Gazette. Among other things it mentions affiliation with Association of Christian Schools International. It seems possible to me that superintendent Roland DeRenzo (currently a redlink) is a wikipedia-notable person. It states:
CSCS has seen more than 10,000 students enter its doors and 3,228 graduate. The school now has 1,150 students — including some in Woodland Park and Westcliffe — 130 employees and an $8 million budget. Tuition costs $6,500 to $9,700 a year. / The 2021 class graduated 71 students, who won more than $5 million in academic scholarships to attend some of the country’s best secular and Christian colleges. Many grads have attended the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, a mile to the east, and some now work there.
routine news / Covid news type articles: "Christian schools note growing enrollment as parents seek alternatives to public schools", by Debbie Kelley, Oct 25, 2021, in Pikes Peak Courier (currently a redlink) (Article appears to be a reprint from Colorado Springs Gazette, and/or Pikes Peak Courier is another newspaper in Gazette's ownership/portfolio.) Includes:
A difference in pandemic practices created what Roland DeRenzo, superintendent of Colorado Springs Christian Schools, calls “a wave of enthusiasm for recruitment season.” / Parents noticed that the pandemic’s typical seesawing between live classroom instruction and remote learning didn’t seem to be happening at faith-based schools. / “Parents were so hungry and excited and had an intensity in getting students back in seats,” he said. / Like many private religious schools, Colorado Springs Christian Schools stayed open after mandatory closures lifted last spring, while still following public health practices, such as installing air filtration systems and stepping up cleaning.

There will be other news type stuff.

I'll stop here. I rather expect there is plenty more, that's just in first 2 pages of Google results. Perhaps the nominator and participants so far did not search on "Colorado Springs Christian High School". --Doncram (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Perhaps the nominator and participants so far did not search on "Colorado Springs Christian High School": No, that's not the case for me. I went through the first five pages and found only one news article. I guess Google is using my past search history and choosing not to show search results from news sites. Anyways, going by the current state of the article, I'm certain that it meets WP:GNG. Tube·of·Light 01:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Doncram: it was a difficult to read through the above given some list formatting issues; however, "typical sports reporting" doesn't make a school notable especially when the divisions it plays in are quite low down. Nonprofit status certainly doesn't on its own. A quote by the superintendent in a local newspaper article doesn't make a school notable. There is one feature type article which had already been mentioned. Note I couldn't even find the school in the US News & World Report listings thought that is probably the school's decision not to be listed (it also wouldn't make it notable but would be some independent info). --Erp (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
some more stuff:
- Fox21 story on 50th year celebration (different than Gazette article)
- Colorado Springs Christian Schools-Woodland Park to add eighth-grade, become a middle school, by NORMA ENGELBERG, Apr 28, 2021
- ~~Colorado Springs District 11 votes to sell historic school building (actually i can't verify this is about CSCS because I hit my 4-articles-free limit on Gazette.~~ --Doncram (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last one is not about the school. The public school district sold the building to a charter school, Mountain Song Community School. Announcing the addition of an 8th grade is hardly noteworthy beyond the local community. The Fox21 story is all of 5 sentences long and a picture which shows a sparse crowd at the celebration. Erp (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Erp, thank you for bearing with formatting issues in my postings here, which have been mitigated somewhat by subsequent edits. Also thanks for identifying non-relevance if one article i cited, since struck-through by me. It takes a village, or something like that . --Doncram (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. Also noting the nominator has withdrawn, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sports articles does not significantly cover the district (it doesn't even seem to cover the schools significantly), and the Fox one is very little coverage. The Colorado District 11 article is just about District 11, not Colorado Springs Christian Schools. I do not see how nonprofit financial info helps with notability: this sort fo information is required, and the most unnotable organization that requires public records will have public records (also, according to WP:ORG, financial reports are primary sources, not secondary). Looking at the sources for Hilltop Baptist School that got deleted, a lot of them suffered link rot, but of the ones that didn't, Colorado Springs Christian Schools is not mentioned once: just because the school may be notable does not automatically make the overseeing organization notable.

The articles that significantly cover Colorado Springs Christian Schools so far mentioned is: Celebrating 50 years article (Colorado Springs Gazette), Growing enrollment as parents seek alternatives article (Pikes Peak Courier), and Adding 8th grade to school article (Pikes Peak Courier). Note that all of these articles come from the same organization, The Gazette. Per WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So it seems to me that so far the only sources that contribute to proving notability are considered one source in the context of WP:GNG, so with the information given so far, this Wikipedia article should be removed. It also seems to fail WP:ORG for similar reasons (see WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:ORGCRITE). TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Present article flawed but notability is established via multiple sources and the discounting of the Courier and Gazette sources seems to be an errant application of the ORG regulations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Colorado Springs, Colorado, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Oppose merger, support keeping the article now that notability is proven (I am the nominator) The article subject is too minor to be mentioned in the Colorado Springs article. Tube·of·Light 05:01, 23 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilltop Baptist School[edit]

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

Almost no coverage by independent reliable sources, and no independent refs on Google. Tube·of·Light 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Colorado. Tube·of·Light 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name is too common to help find sources. It's been closed for over 10 yrs and no further sources are likely to turn up, no heritage register listings that I can see either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 June 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 13:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this article got blanked pretty hard, there was some information that got removed that turned the article into mostly a stub, but I'm not sure if that info was exactly proper for the article. ~XyNq^t_c 15:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This diff appears to be the content removal mentioned above. I'm not going to restore it, because as it written it appears to violate BLP. But the sources indicate that the scandal content removed was directly causal to the school's closing, changing the nature of the scandal from sensational news we shouldn't cover to history, which we definitely should cover. With the sourcing for the removed content, this easily meets GNG. 174.212.228.43 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of User:XyNq and i.p. editor. Tag for rewriting. Should be re-expanded sensitively. This is significant history; record of what happens to schools upon a scandal as here, fairly or not, should be remembered. Also the scandal and then closure may have affected enrollments at other schools such as Colorado Springs Christian Schools (also up for deletion, and i !voted Keep) where it might be mentioned. --Doncram (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very clear that this article meets WP:GNG, just considering sources deleted from the article. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I carefully reinserted a very high-level picture of the sexual abuse case to the article. There are tons of sources on that, especially if you include the name of the perpetrator in the search. I have found very little about the school that is unrelated to the sexual abuse case. Jacona (talk) 09:22, 20 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMoney[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under wp:GNG or SNG. This is a product of a company. I would have merged myself but more eyes on this edge case would be good. Of the two sources, one is a website which does a pretty thorough review. The other is a link to their own website. I did a quick search and found little more. Suggest a merge into the company's article. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added extra references. easyMoney (a trading name of E-money Capital Ltd) is no longer owned by easyGroup according to Companies House and therefore should not be re-merged into the easyGroup article. easyGroup is not a regular conglomerate, but a branded venture capitalist which licences its name out to the various operating companies, some of which it only part owns (like easyJet) or does not own at all anymore (such as easyMoney).

LRB2000 (talk) LRB2000 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there are partly routine and partly significant coverage in media. --Bash7oven (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also, the suggestion of a merge is not valid anymore, as the company doesn't belong to easyGroup anymore. Bash7oven (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited references. Absent a source analysis, I don't see a compelling deletion argument being made.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 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 09:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish locality[edit]

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

This is mostly a fake. The CBS does or did, for statistical purposes, classify in some of its publication settlements as Jewish locality (majority of residents Jewish) or Non-Newish locality (all other settlements). In some tables, like the 2012 pdf in the article there are "not-Jewish 2000-4,999 residents" (יישוב לא-יהודי 2000-4999 תושבים), "other rural settlement, not Jewish", "Jewish 2000-4,999 residents" (יישוב יהודי 2000-4999 תושבים), "Jewish settlements 5000-9999 residents (" ישוב יהודי 000,5-999,9 תושבים"), "Insitutional settlement, Jewish" ("יישוב מוסדי, יהוד"). The Jewish / not-Jewish label is only added to categories in which the ethnicity is not obvious, as Moshavim and Kibbutzim for instance are all majority Jewish. This is not a form of government in Israel. In addition, there are many more than 32 settlements classified by the CBS as majority Jewish, as most settlements in Israel are Jewish. The 2012 PDF linked to has statistics only for settlements included in regional councils, which excludes all larger settlement types such as cities and most local councils, since regional councils only aggregate smaller settlements. The CBS Jewish locality or not-Jewish locality is only a straightforward statistical designation based on being majority Jewish or not Jewish, it is statistical terminlogy, glossary, or dictionary, not a type of settlement. Each of these settlements uses a standard Israeli local government form. חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors that can read Hebrew, can see the current CBS methodology at the intro to יישובים בישראל- קובצי יישובים, 2020-2003. The religious field, Jewish or non-Jewish by majority of inhabitants, is defined in clause 3. The CBS's settlement type breakdown is orthogonal to religion and is in clause 5, it is also a non-official classification and writes so at the beginning of the clause: ""צורת יישוב צורת היישוב נקבעה, ככל האפשר, לפי המצב בפועל ולפי ההגדרות שלהלן. אין - בקביעה זו כדי להשליך על מעמדו של יישוב על פי דין."חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a technical (hybrid) classification, not a substantial classification such as kibbutz, moshav, town, city, etc. It rehashes subject matter also covered elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 13 June 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 12:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just a statistical definition of a place with more than 50% Jews.--CZUQZ (talk) 07:31, 20 June 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 Crimson Dynamo#Dmitri Bukharin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Bukharin[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV, article contains no secondary sources, only primary cites to comic books. Suggest redirect to Crimson Dynamo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Crimson Dynamo per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crimson Dynamo, nothing to merge due to lack of independent refs (outside of a plot summary, I guess). Nothing to warrant keeping this (fails WP:GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ due to GNG failure, sources are WP:PRIMARY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have already !voted "redirect" directly above. ✗plicit 12:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crimson Dynamo#Dmitri Bukharin - No sources indicating enough independent notability that this should be split out from the main article on the Crimson Dynamo. A short biography of the character already exists on the main article, and as there is no secondary sourced material or analysis here, there really isn't anything further that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 16 June 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. Limited participation and no consensus after two relists. I'm actually not even sure why this was listed at AfD in the first place, since deletion was not requested in the nomination and there is no history at either the nominated article or the suggested redirect target to indicate that a merge or redirect was attempted or discussed previously. RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese submarine Yu 23[edit]

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

Given that as the article notes, there is essentially nothing that can be individually said about this vessel apart from the class description, there is no reason to have a separate article on this subject. Redirect to Type 3 submergence transport vehicle#Yu 1-class, as almost the entire article is about that class rather than this ship, and the brief mention in a list there suffices for coverage of this vessel. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: The article does in fact summarize what is known about the submarine specifically, both in terms of what is known about her construction and career, in ways not quite covered in the class article. It at a minimum creates a stub/baseline for future research to build upon (something Wikipedia otherwise encourages as broad philosophy of the site), and it pushes forward (what should be) Wikipedia's goal of creating new and better information content for the general public. Including some class design information in ship-specific articles is a common practice on Wikipedia and not aberrant here. If the amount of detail on the class offends for some reason, then reduce or eliminate it without deleting the article. I find it hard to understand how deleting the article would improve Wikipedia's coverage of either the specific submarine or of the class as a whole. If coverage of this specific submarine cannot begin with this article, then how could it begin at all? Mdnavman (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

If coverage of this specific submarine cannot begin with this article, then how could it begin at all? - by covering it within the main class article. See something like Squib-class torpedo boat#CSS Hornet for another vessel about which not much can be said besides the shared class design. Since there's many more of this class of submarines than of the Squib-class vessels, it would probably be better to have a table of the various submarines within the class article. The class article should have a summary of characteristics/description much like is in the submarine article right now; the table of submarines could then include launch date/notes/fate etc. for the individual vessels. Considering that the most that can be said about the individual career of this vessel is a couple dates and "we don't know what it did", there's not a good reason for the coverage of this vessel to be in a separate page since 95% should be in the class article anyway. If someone ever does find out something useful about the individual ship's history, a separate article could of course be created. The best way to cover a topic isn't always a stand-alone page. Hog Farm _Talk 03:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Japan. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In general, a commissioned submarine should easily meet the requirements of GNG. In some cases, and this one appears to be such an article, almost everything that is known about the individual submarine can be easily accommodated in a detailed class article. That doesn't mean that additional sources about unique aspects of this boat might surface... So I'm happy with it existing separately for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Type 3 submergence transport vehicle#Yu 1-class. It appears that the records that would allow WP:SIGCOV to be written about this transport do not exist - the limited information that is available would be suitable for a table in an existing article. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Type 3 submergence transport vehicle, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia (Novel)[edit]

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

References only indicate that this book was published, not that that it was (is) at all notable. A loose necktie (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant independent reliable sources online; current references fail the standard. The first one is a brief entry; not significant. The second is a comment on Goodreads. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in the slightest, it doesn't need an article here. ~XyNq^t_c 15:23, 16 June 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 Procedural keep. The nominator did not make a deletion argument, but argued for a merge. This is not the proper venue for a merge discussion, and this argument should have been made using the process at WP:MERGE. While we do sometimes merge articles at AFD per WP:ATD, this is only as an alternative to deletion when a deletion argument has been made. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist Mojahedin[edit]

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

Most academic sources refer to the "Marxist Mojahedin" as a "Marxist faction" or "Marxist branch" of the Mojahedin that didn't have its own name initially but later named itself Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class (also known as Peykar or Paykar). This article should be merged into Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class per scholarly WP:DUE. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the academic consensus about this:

1)"Immediately after the revolution, when the Marxist Mojahedin renamed itself Peykar"^[1]

2)"Paykar organization” (Marxist Mujahedin)"^[2]

3)"It might be worth noting that Peykar had its origins within the Mojahedin. It once constituted the Marxist wing of the organization. At one point in the mid-1970s it carried out an internal "coup" in an attempt to transform the organization into a Marxist Leninist organization. The coup included execution of an opponent from the Islamic wing. This action ultimately failed, and the Marxist-Mojahedin were expelled, later forming Peykar."^[3]

4)"The Marxist branch was to name itself as the Paykar Group following the Iranian revolution” ^[4]

5)"The Islamic wing of the Mojahedin refused to give up the name, and eventually the Marxist Mojahedin adopted the name Peykar (Struggle)"^[5]

6)"Paykar, the Neo-Marxist splinter group which broke away from the Mojahedin prior to the revolution."^[6]

7"While the remaining primary members of MEK, including Masoud Rajavi, were imprisoned, some of the early members of MEK ... formed a new Marxist organization, later known as Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class or simply Peykar." ^[7]

8)"The Marxist offshoot from the Sazman-i Mojahedin-i Khalq-i Iran. From 1975 to 1979, this organization was known as the Marxist Mojahedin. After the revolution, it adopted the title of Sazman-i Paykar dar Rah-i Azad-i Tabaqeh-i Kargar (The Fighting Organisation of the Road to Liberating the Working Class). It is now known simply as Kaykar (Battle)”.^[8]

9)"Converting to Marxism in the mid-1970s, he had led the Mojahedin's Marxist offshoot, which, after the revolution, adopted the name Sazeman-e Paykar dar Rah-e Azadi-ye Tabaqeh-ye Kargar (Combat organization on the road to the emancipation of the working class) - better known as Paykar.".^[9]

10)"In 1976, the Mojaedin split into two opposing sections. A group of Mojahedin denounced hte path of armed struggle and the reference to Islam, and split to set up a secular guerilla organisation by the name of Peykar Khalgh. This split served to strenghen the Islamic identity of the original Mojahedin Khalgh Organisation."^[10]

11)"Marxist-Leninist Mujahedin. Soon after the revolution it acquired a new name: Sazman-e Paykar dar Rah-e Azadi-e Tabaqah-e Kargar (The Combat Organisation on the Road to the Liberation of the Working Class), commonly known as Paykar, Combat"^[11]

12)"It might be worth noting that Peykar had its origins within the Mojahedin. It once constituted the Marxist wing of the organization."^[12]

13)"However, when the imprisoned cadres faithful to the original orientation of the organization were released after the revolution, the Marxist branch dropped the name Mojahedin-Khalq and chose the new name The Fighting Organization on the Road for the Liberation of the Working Class (Peykar dar Rah-e Azadi-e Tabaghey-e Kargar, hereafter Peykar)"^[13]

14)"The Marxist faction staged a coup and purged the non-Marxist elements. In 1978, the Marxist faction renamed itself Peykar and resumed its activities, and the Moslem members recaptured the leadership of the Mojahedin"^[14]

15)"a splinter organization from the People's Mojahedin of Iran (MEK). Peykar was a Marxist-Leninist organisation founded in 1975, and in the post-revolutionary era it moved its activities to Kurdistan"^[15]

16)"This organization split into a Marxist faction and the original Islamic group in 1974. The Marxist group was later renamed Sazman-e Peykar dar Rah-e Azadi Tabagheh Kargar or simply Peykar (The Organization for the Liberation of the Working Class), but the Islamic Mojahedin retained the original name."^[16]

17)"By 1975 the Mojahedin had in turn subdivided, and a breakaway group called the Peykar began to concentrate on the working class struggle"^[17]

18)"sided with the Marxist faction during the schism that produced two groups - one that stayed ture to its original Islamic worldview and the other, the Marxist Mujahedin, which eventually became Paykar"^[18]

Extended content
References ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-0520218666. ^ Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.558\| ^ Hooshang Amirahmadi (2019). Postrevolutionary Iran. Routledge. p. url. It might be worth noting that Peykar had its origins within the Mojahedin. It once constituted the Marxist wing of the organization. ^ Iran at War: 1500-1988 (General Military) by Kaveh Farrokh, page 450 ^ SHIREEN T. HUNTER (2014). Iran Divided The Historical Roots of Iranian Debates on Identity, Culture, and Governance in the Twenty-First Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 78. ^ The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile The Mojahedin-e Khalq and its Struggle for Survival James A. Piazza, page 5 ^ The Shah of Iran, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Lebanese Shia By Arash Reisinezhad, page 337 ^ Afshar, Halehr (1985). Iran A Revolution in Turmoil. Springer. p. 151. ^ Ellis J. Goldberg (1993). Rules and Rights in the Middle East: Democracy, Law, and Society. University of Washington Press. p. 213. ^ Parvin Paidar (1995). Women and the Political Process in Twentieth-Century Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 202. ^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-135-04381-0. ^ Hooshang Amirahmadi (2019). Postrevolutionary Iran. Routledge. p. url. ^ Halleh Ghorashi (2014). Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands and United States. Nova Science Pub Inc. p. 57. ^ Mohsen M Milani (1994). The Making Of Iran's Islamic Revolution From Monarchy To Islamic Republic. Routledge. p. url. ^ Allan Hassaniyan (2021). Kurdish Politics in Iran: Crossborder Interactions and Mobilisation since 1947. Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ^ Susan C. Cloninger (2017). Understanding Angry Groups: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Their Motivations and Effects on Society. Praeger. p. url. ^ Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi (1980). Iran: Royalty, Religion and Revolution. Ma'rifat Publishing House. p. 297. ^ Pouya Alimagham (2020). Contesting the Iranian Revolution: The Green Uprisings. Cambridge University Press. p. 153.

Extended content

References

^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-0520218666.
^ Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.558|
^ Hooshang Amirahmadi (2019). Postrevolutionary Iran. Routledge. p. url. It might be worth noting that Peykar had its origins within the Mojahedin. It once constituted the Marxist wing of the organization.
^ Iran at War: 1500-1988 (General Military) by Kaveh Farrokh, page 450
^ SHIREEN T. HUNTER (2014). Iran Divided The Historical Roots of Iranian Debates on Identity, Culture, and Governance in the Twenty-First Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 78.
^ The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile The Mojahedin-e Khalq and its Struggle for Survival James A. Piazza, page 5
^ The Shah of Iran, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Lebanese Shia By Arash Reisinezhad, page 337
^ Afshar, Halehr (1985). Iran A Revolution in Turmoil. Springer. p. 151.
^ Ellis J. Goldberg (1993). Rules and Rights in the Middle East: Democracy, Law, and Society. University of Washington Press. p. 213.
^ Parvin Paidar (1995). Women and the Political Process in Twentieth-Century Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 202.
^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-135-04381-0.
^ Hooshang Amirahmadi (2019). Postrevolutionary Iran. Routledge. p. url.
^ Halleh Ghorashi (2014). Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands and United States. Nova Science Pub Inc. p. 57.
^ Mohsen M Milani (1994). The Making Of Iran's Islamic Revolution From Monarchy To Islamic Republic. Routledge. p. url.
^ Allan Hassaniyan (2021). Kurdish Politics in Iran: Crossborder Interactions and Mobilisation since 1947. Cambridge University Press. p. 142.
^ Susan C. Cloninger (2017). Understanding Angry Groups: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Their Motivations and Effects on Society. Praeger. p. url.
^ Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi (1980). Iran: Royalty, Religion and Revolution. Ma'rifat Publishing House. p. 297.
^ Pouya Alimagham (2020). Contesting the Iranian Revolution: The Green Uprisings. Cambridge University Press. p. 153.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: This probably should be merged into Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class per nom; however, this is the wrong venue for a proposed merge; it should be at proposed merge used at the process outlined at WP:PAM. TartarTorte 17:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So two people think it should be merged, no-one thinks it should be deleted, but still it sits in AfD without ny merger proposal having been made. I've done it now, but honestly... Kevin McE (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I typically wait until a discussion closes at one venue to start one elsewhere, but that's just my personal thoughts on the matter. TartarTorte 17:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion or merger. Subject clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability and should not be merged with any other article. Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class (Peykar) is a separate organization founded in late 1978 and an offshoot of this organization which was active between 1975 and late 1978. Please see ((Mojahedin offshoots)) for other offshoots of this organization. Pahlevun (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilai Harsgor Hendin[edit]

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

The same article by the same creator was speedy deleted on the Hebrew Wikipedia. When it was created, he was candidate for mayor of Kfar Saba, but he ended up placing 5th with 11.23%. He is a councilman, but almost all of his coverage is local. He did get a few soundbites in national media when the mayor was involved in a bribery scandal, but he just isn't notable. חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete the sourcing is just not there to justify this article on a politician. He was not elected mayor, and deputy mayor is not high enough for an article without way better sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 16 June 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 North Slavic languages. This AfD is long and complex enough that new people would likely not join in. Reading over the comments, there seems to be a clear consensus that the topic is not ripe for coverage on its own. That being said, there is not a clear consensus for deletion. Since the most common suggestion is merging, that is what I see as the most favored outcome. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Slavs[edit]

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

The purpose of this article is unclear, and I doubt it can be given a legitimate purpose. The added value of this article separate from "North Slavic languages" is questionable, because it uses language as the basis of this ethnic grouping, but extrapolates into many directions to topics (such as a Polish food shop in England) that have nothing to do with language groups and would normally never be brought up in a discussion about North Slavs as an (ethno)linguistic grouping, but only in discussions about 'national' cultures such as Polish culture, Czech culture etc. Note that just because the categorisation of Slavic languages into North and South is far less common than into West, East and South does not make 'North Slavic languages' an illegitimate subject: the article "North Slavic languages" exists and survived a 2005 deletion nomination. But that doesn't mean that therefore automatically 'North Slavs' has separate added value. Secondly, it suffers from many of the same problems that the articles on Eastern Orthodox Slavs, Catholic Slavs, and later Muslim Slavs were deleted for a few months ago (and I can almost copypaste the same objections to this article from there): this article is a loose collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with rampant generalisations to imply an inherent connection between people who just so happen to be speakers of North Slavic languages, which is then extrapolated to claim a political-cultural-religious unity amongst all post-1991 sovereign states that happen to have a North Slavic-speaking majority population living inside their borders. Such generalisations ignore the non-North-Slavic populations within these states, and often the North-Slavic-speaking people outside them as well. I've tried making improvements to the article in February 2022, and again today, urging people to cite RS to prove the claims within the article. Some have been added since, but they almost always fail consistently upon verification: the source never says what the article says – it usually just mentions a specific ethnic group that this article claims are 'North Slavs' in passing without substantiating the specific claim in question – or even explicitly says something else, such as Karatnycky (2001) p.81 clearly saying that Belarusians form only 78% of the Belarus population (estimated at 10 million), and does not mention Belarusians outside Belarus, so there is no reason to claim there are 10 million ethnic/linguistic Belarusians in total. Anything else in the article just says something about the number of speakers of specific 'North Slavic' languages in the purported set of countries, or is about the history of Slavs or Slavic languages in general or several 'national' histories in particular, selectively ignoring all the non-North-Slavic people in these states, and North Slavs outside these states. I can go into more specifics, but I think you will have gotten the message by now. The articles 'Eastern Orthodox Slavs', 'Catholic Slavs', and 'Muslim Slavs' were deleted in February for very similar reasons. The Talk:North Slavs page also shows that right after this article was created in April 2017, other Wikipedians have launched similar objections to the article as a whole, or specifically the same objections that I have listed here. The only added value this article might have is where it concerns very dubious and outdated views about race and ethnicity from the era of scientific racism, featured for example in that 1879 Phrenological Journal and Science of Health (for the record, phrenology is pseudoscience), and Ruggd (1938) saying: "the north Slavs have a little lighter hair and skin color than the south Slavs; and far to the north they have much lighter hair". But I don't think that requires its own article; that can be moved to the 'scientific racism' article. At most, 'North Slavs' should be a redirect to 'North Slavic languages', but nothing more. Whether the same scrutiny should be applied to the articles West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs would be an interesting follow-up question, but I'll just take this article for now, and await your assessments. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Tagging @Veverve:, @Gusfriend:, @Peterkingiron: and @Joy: who were substantially involved in the earlier deletion discussions and may have good arguments pro or contra deleting this one. It's not entirely the same situation but very similar, so your opinions could be valuable for making a decision. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also tag here the users @Lembit Staan:, @Iryna Harpy:, @Oranges Juicy:, @Piotrus: - all of whom have provided valuable input to actual North Slavs page in the past by removing/adding content where necessary and/or aiding with tackling vandalism.

Comment: My first thought was that a universal Slavic peoples page would be way, way too long and require an immediate split but perhaps a merge in that direction is the way to go. I wonder how much of the content of the page is unique to the page. Gusfriend (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We could move all useful content from this page to either North Slavic languages and/or Slavs where applicable, and wherever it is not duplicated content already, and make this a redirect to whichever is more appropriate. (Incidentally, the Slavs article has similar issues, although not as big as this article. But as I said, let's do one article at a time). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on maps: The use of maps in this article is also questionable. Using File:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at its maximum extent.svg with the caption 'Many of the North Slavonic nations used to be part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Russian Empire' seems WP:OR. The File:North Slavic languages.png in the Languages section is fine, but that section only has added value if there is something substantial to say about North Slavs beyond linguistics, otherwise it is just duplicating content from North Slavic languages. But most of my objections are against File:North Slavs and South Slavs.png, an April 2017 self-made map of the article's creator Samotny Wędrowiec, because it has similar problems to the maps that were used in the now-deleted Eastern Orthodox Slavs and Catholic Slavs articles (namely File:Orthodox Slavs.png, File:Eastern Orthodox slavic nations.png, File:Catholic Slavs.png and File:Catholic Slavs by percentage.png) in that it seems to constitute WP:SYNTH. In February 2022, I've demanded sources for this map. To their credit, Samotny Wędrowiec provided no less than 10 sources for the map, but unfortunately they all have various issues. I've not checked all the sources yet (in some cases that was impossible because pages are not given or the books cannot be found online), but in other cases they failed verification, or are simply too old (namely pre-1991 and can thus never be reliably used for demographics or language policies in post-1991 states). Even the most reasonable source (which nevertheless still has some problems), O.T. Ford's "Reference base: Slavs", makes a clear distinction between areas where Slavic languages are spoken by the majority of an area's inhabitants ('presence of Slavic as a native dialect'), and whether there is 'state sponsorship of a Slavic dialect', or both. Moreover, unlike File:North Slavs and South Slavs.png, Ford's maps do not distinguish North and South Slavic (even though the text next to it does). If File:North Slavs and South Slavs.png is to have any function, then in my opinion it would be to indicate 'state sponsorship of a Slavic dialect' in post-1991 states, and base itself on sources that provide information on that, and remove everthing else. All that would give us is a map of which post-1991 states sponsor a Slavic dialect as an official language; it would not say much about North Slavs as an ethnic group (especially not those North Slavs living in states where they constitute minorities), or about North Slav demographics or these states' demographics (after all, there are countries in the world where the official language(s) is/are not the native language of the population's majority, e.g. Hindi (43.63%) and English (0.02%) in India in 2011). Alternatively, the map could be used to indicate which countries have a majority population of North and South Slavic languages, in which case we are talking purely linguistic demographics, and not about official state language policies. Either way, this map would belong in the North Slavic languages article, and not in an article about North Slavs as an ethnic group (if that merits its own article to start with, which I doubt, hence this deletion nomination). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some valid points, but I don't understand how you can separate language from ethnicity so confidently and nonchalantly. While language can be separated from ethnicity, the latter cannot be understood without the former. Regardless of how alike a group of people in the same area may look, no matter how many of the same customs they all partake in, they will not think of themselves as the same nation/ethnic group/imagined community if they cannot understand each other in the slightest. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not always the case. In many cases around the world, ideas about ethnicities, nations or imagined communities are not based on language but something else, for example shared religion, geography, history, customs, etc.

For example, India has many different versions of nationalism, including Hindu nationalism / Hindutva (based on religion), Hindi nationalism (based on language), Indian nationalism (based on state/geography/history/customs), Islamic Kashmiri separatism (based on religion) etc.. Hindu nationalists do not regard the Indian nation as monolingual, but they do see it as monoreligious. Indian nationalists tend to be secular and accept the Indian nation as multilingual and multireligious. As I stated earlier, the two official languages of the country are not even the native language of the absolute majority of the population, so equating country and language and then claiming that a particular country is the 'nation-state' of a language-based group sometimes simply doesn't work.
A more compelling case is that of nationalism in former Yugoslavia: while Yugoslavism is a language-based nationalism (and sometimes a historic/nostalic or communist-based one), Croat, Serb, and Bosniak nationalism are religion-based. Although these nationalists may nowadays claim they speak separate languages, most scholars agree that Serbo-Croatian or BCMS is a single but pluricentric language that only became heavily politicised during and after the breakup of Yugoslavia, which was primarily caused by religious differences. The idea that nations and nationalisms are or should always be language-based is very Eurocentric, but even in Europe, as the Yugoslav case shows, nationalism is often not language-based, and nationalists imagine themselves as separate from other groups despite sharing a common language.
Even more obvious examples are how most Brits/English/Welsh/Scots/Northern Irish, Irish, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc. are native English speakers, all call their language 'English', and yet do not believe they constitute a single 'nation'. That is why I can 'separate language from ethnicity so confidently and nonchalantly', because it is very often done around the world, and we should not make the assumption that everyone always connects them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is quite true and I agree with most of what you said here, but bringing it up is unnecessary when the entire Slavonic identity and category is based on language. This is why we refer to Slavs not purely as an "ethnic group", but an "ethnolinguistic group". If Slavic languages are the main defining element of Slavic peoples, then surely North Slavonic tongues will be the main element for North Slavic peoples.

And just as you accuse me of Eurocentrism, I could say that you are trying to force Western and colonial concepts onto Eastern European and Slavic realities, which are quite different. For Eastern Europe, language and religion have been the main points of division. Without Slavic tongues there would be no Slavs, without North Slavic dialect continuum there wouldn't be North Slavs. Simple as.

Finally, this is a request of a personal nature, but please use paragraphs when possible to divide larger bodies of text. This makes it much easier to read and less difficult to concentrate on each argument made, especially after reading a lot in one go. Thank you.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of ethnic groups doesn't become a thing just by virtue of them speaking languages belonging to the same linguistic subgroup or family. That's a commonly held view among some Wikipedians, but not matched by how the outside world (= academia) approaches it. The only thing that counts are reliable sources which cover the topic as a subject of its own right, and not based just on the formula "the X peoples are the peoples speaking languages of the X family". That's a definition, but not a topic. Finally, ethnolinguistic group doesn't mean what you might think it means (another Wikipedia idiosyncrasy): please click on the link to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austronesier (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, but that's not exactly what I said either. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, those who think that the majority of linguists are mistaken in dividing the 'North Slavic languages' into West and East Slavic because they have somehow been led astray by the (irrelevant) observations that most Slavs in the western part of this geographical area are Catholic and use the Latin script, whereas most Slavs in the eastern part are Orthodox and use the Cyrillic script, have a burden of proof to explain why the majority of linguists weren't somehow led astray by exactly the same religious and writing system divisions that exist amongst speakers of the 'South Slavic languages' in the Balkans. Occam's razor favours a simpler explanation: the minority of linguists who think there is a 'North Slavic language family' may have been led astray by the (irrelevant) observation that the South Slavs are separated from the other Slavs in the north by geography (Ford may be one of these linguists). Although linguistics isn't an exact science, and taxonomic classifications can and are sometimes revised (just like in biology), the majority of linguists probably has a good reason to conclude that a subdivision of Slavic languages into East, West and South (rather than North and South) is justified by linguistic evidence independent from such irrelevant observations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Ford is not a linguist (PhD in geopgraphy), and his website is a WP:SPS. I start to get the impression that no comparative linguist (who are actually "in charge" of linguistic classification) is involved in the North Slavic proposal. A big red flag, also for the article North Slavic languages. –Austronesier (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, as shown by several sources in the article - though not only in linguistics but also archaeology and folklore studies. Can't be bothered to look through all of them for examples right now, but I just added a new one from Zbigniew Gołąb, who in at least one work uses the "North Slav" model alongside the West and East Slavic standard he usually goes for. It's all very context-dependent. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a quick Google Books search, I've found that the "North Slav" category has been in even more widespread use than I had previously believed, not just in linguistics either but especially in terms of differentiating the North Slavs from the South Slavs within the former territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The nations considered North Slavonic by these sources are almost always Belarusians, Czechs, Poles, Russians, Slovaks, and Ukrainians (Rusyns/Ruthenians and other minority groups are sometimes mentioned too), though one source differed in that it put Rusyns and Slovaks in the South. I've stopped adding these sources at this point though as it's becoming redundant. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Oh, thanks for correcting me on Ford's credentials. Well, that explains a lot! A geographer is exactly the kind of person who would be led astray by the geographical split rather than the actual linguistic evidence. I agree, it's time that we really look sharply into the North Slavic languages article and make sure the info there at least passes GNG, RS, OR, SYNTH etc. before we can even consider whether North Slavs as a separate article could or should exist. I'm leaning towards the comparison that Samotny made (on the talk page in April 2017) with the article South Germanic: we state clearly that it is a rarely-used term with many different contradictory meanings, none of which has broad support amongst scholars. In doing so, we should also be careful with maps, avoiding to imply that any of them accurately represents reality, and that all of them are merely models that are disputed by the consensus, and by each other. I'll take Palgrave as the basis for the rewrite. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: @Samotny Wędrowiec: I've just rewritten the North Slavic languages page according to the South Germanic model. Samotny edited both articles and used a lot of the same sources, and so they had a lot of the same problems in choice of sources, representation of sources, and general style. I've added a lot of tags to parts of the text that may still be salvaged if appropriate sources or clarification are provided. As far as I can see though, the definition of 'North Slavic languages' as simply being a combination of West and East Slavic languages is just one out of many definitions, and it is not necessarily the most widely used or popular one. Countless combinations have been made by various writers from 1841 to present, and they more frequently disagree than agree with each other. This undermines the future of a separate North Slavs article even further. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main problem I see is that the article contains a lot of original research and tries to present a fringe perspective as relatively mainstream, with lots of peculiar hedging ("is not universally accepted", "while ... is often the standard model") with a mishmash of trivia about cuisine, religion, or political affiliation as supporting "evidence" for a supposed racial or linguistic group. Mainstream (Slavic) linguistics does not endorse a basic north/south grouping of Slavic, but this article takes that as a viable premise and runs with it. Doremo (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning towards redirect to North Slavic languages): Obviously, this article has a big SYNTH-issue. Most sources talk about individual groups which are included here as "North Slavs", but without any mention of the latter concept in the source. The question the is: how much of WP:SIGCOV about North Slavs is left if all synth pieces are thrown out? And how many sources which actually mention North Slavs in the intended meaning have more to say than something like "North Slavs are the speakers of the North Slavic languages"? E.g. something about shared culture, history, food or whatever? Since the North Slavic languages are a controversial concept with little mainstream acceptance, a grouping of peoples solely defined by this criterion is even more tenuous than Romance peoples, a grouping of peoples that is based on a uncontroversial linguistic subgroup, and yet for which WP has nothing but a redirect per community consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is a good suggestion, and the comment above makes a good argumentation for it. Doremo (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Austronesier and Doremo. If we removed all synth, we would probably only be left with SIGCOV for linguistics, and primary sources containing outdated pre-WW2 ethnology/scientific racism stuff. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)~[reply]

We cannot just remove the racial "science" stuff as if it never existed. If it's part of the history of a topic then it's not in our place to whitewash it, regardless of how inaccurate or bizarre it may seem to us in the present day. Also, I think the three of you should actually have a read through some of the more recent sources to see that there is much more to this (e.g. providing exact page numbers for some of the sources is redundant when much of the text, or indeed an entire article/essay, argues the point mentioned). There is a lot of willful ignorance on your part with regards to these. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw and Samotny Wędrowiec: The onus of proving WP:SIGCOV or lack thereof lies with you on both sides. So far I have seen many valid arguments about SYNTH, but since the purpose of an AfD is not cleanup, we should get to the point of substantially looking at what is left of the article after pruning SYNTH and off-topic material (e.g. the entire section "Population"; AFAICS, none of the sources talks about these individual ethnic groups as being part of the "North Slavs"). So far I can only see tens of kilobytes here devoted to theoretical considerations why the article should exist or why it shouldn't. –Austronesier (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps this discussion should focus on only one section of the article, because the "Population" part is indeed the most problematic. In truth I cannot defend it well either. That paragraph needs either a complete re-write or deletion. However, to amplify these issues and apply them to the rest of the article and somehow try to make a point for complete deletion is quite ridiculous. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to say: the issues with the "Population" section are symptomatic for the whole build-up of the article, though. I have added a few tags about problematic points. Personally, I find tag-bombing always a bit embarrassing and pointy, but I will continue to add a few more if necessary for the benefit of this discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for sources working in outdated concepts such as scientific racism or racial essentialism: of course we can have articles about obsolete concepts, but we should then present them as such. We cannot reify them back to legitimacy by building content based on obsolete frameworks, but using modern sources which simply do not subscribe to those frameworks. –Austronesier (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely fair. Let's do that instead of erasing things from existence. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samotny Wędrowiec: Could you confirm or correct me if this is what you meant by <ref name="minnesota">((cite book|date=1933|title=Social Studies for Minnesota Schools, Seventh Year|publisher=C. Scribner's Sons|page=44))</ref>? The publication info all seems to match, but the contents have nothing to do with North Slavs. Perhaps there was a mixup? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely missed this when you wrote it first. I honestly cannot even remember what this was used for. However, I used Google search inside the book and it brought this up on page 44: "The Slavs. Many of the new immigrants are Slavs, who are divided into two main divisions - the North Slavs and the South Slavs, or Jugo-Slavs. The North" and then the preview cuts off. So looks like it is relevant, but I can't view the rest. I'll see if I can find more of this text elsewhere. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samotny Wędrowiec: Are you the author of this paper? This would not be allowed per WP:SELFPUB. I think this source should be removed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, though looking at it now in 2022 I can see why you might think so. The original version did not have any images, iirc, so the author has since modified it with the map I made and other content from Wikimedia Commons apparently. Makes sense, considering not much else comes up on WM when searching "North Slavs". However, I don't see why that would make it any less viable for use in this article. That's just the reality of digital media and information technology. The Lindsay source you brought up earlier also seems to have changed, but much more drastically, since I first used it in this article. I will get to responding to your other points here soon, just a little overwhelmed atm with research and responses at the same time. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although it's curious that the paper was updated in April 2017 to include those maps, and you uploaded that File:North Slavs and South Slavs.png on 27 April 2017, so the author would have had mere days to notice and include that map after you uploaded it. He has a Polish name and also indicates having studied at Newcastle University, while you added a source about a Polish food shop in... Newcastle. Is it someone you know, or is it a coincidence? If it is someone else, he is violating your copyright, as well as that of others whose maps he has included in the paper without mentioning the licence ("Samotny Wędrowiec CC-BY-SA 4.0" in the case of File:North Slavs and South Slavs.png), and you could sue him if you wanted to.

I don't live in Newcastle, but I have been there many times - I've taken photos of Polsih shops in the region before to use in a different article about Polish migration to the UK. There are over half a million Poles still living in the UK (there were even more of us before Brexit), so things like this are bound to happen sooner or later. Anyway, going back to the topic, I could try to reach out to the author on academia.edu if I can be bothered, and I sure could use some more money haha, but tbh I would probably lose more in lawyer fees than gain! In all honesty, I didn't even know this was the case; I'm not too familiar with or particularly fond of copyright (more often than not it seems to protect large corporations instead of creators), and I'm flattered anyone else would use photos/maps I've made, so I'm not vexed with their use of them. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the paper does not appear to be peer-reviewed, it is a bit of a mix between an opinion piece and an essay with a few scholarly footnotes here and there. Although a lot of academic work is published on academia.edu, people can self-publish articles without peer review there as well, so the website itself does not make a specific paper a reliable source. WP:RS/P does not mention 'academia.edu', so perhaps we should pose this question to the community (RfC) for future academia.edu cases.

That's fair, I quite like how accessible academia makes things for people from outside of, well, the academia. Just like Wikipedia, I think stuff like this should always be freely available to all. Though obviously with that comes the issue of establishing reliability. However, I still do think there is plenty of value in this source and think it should be kept. If not as a journal then at least as an online source in "cite web" format. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, as I also indicated in the edit summary: the search function (ctrl+F) does not work properly in documents published on academia.edu, it only scans the contents of the page you're looking at. You can't use it to find all occurrences of a word or character combination in the entire paper, the website doesn't let you. The words 'North', 'South', 'East' and 'West' do feature in the Lindsay paper, but without pages, it can be hard to verify these specific claims. (Might this be the reason why the Lindsay paper appears to have changed 'drastically' because you can't find back certain words you thought were there?) Perhaps we can somehow download the pdfs and search the texts offline, because Adobe Acrobat Reader or other programmes will allow us to scan the entire text and find what we're looking for. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could be the reason or it could just be my poor memory. I believe you can download papers from the website if you have an account there. At this point I'm not too fussed with leaving the Lindsay source out though, as it was used only for only one statement iirc. So it's not as valuable to the body of the article as for example the Palgrave, Ford, or other academia stuff. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote from the Minnesota source. I've been able to extract some more text. The entire passage is as follows: "Many of the new immigrants are Slavs, who are divided into two main divisions — the North Slavs and the South Slavs, or Jugo-Slavs. The North Slavs include the Poles, the Bohemians, the Ruthenians, the Slovaks, and the Russians. The Jugo-Slavs include the Serbians, the Montenegrins, the Croatians, the Slovenians, and the Dalmatians. The Poles. Over three million people of Polish parentage live in our country..." It is an interesting passage, which somewhat aligns with the North vs South Slav concept, but it is a primary source, a sociological rather than linguistic source, and it uses outdated groupings of people such as 'Bohemians, Ruthenians, Dalmatians' etc. and they fail to mention the Bulgarians, Belarusians, Rusyns and various other relevant groups. It's up to linguists to analyse these primary sources and explain how they imagine North Slavs, like the Palgrave 2016 book does; Wikipedians cannot cite these sources directly in order to claim '[North Slavic is] a classification of both the East Slavic and West Slavic groups together that has been in use for several centuries, but is not universally accepted'. The source does not mention 'East' or 'West Slavic', let alone say that 'North Slavic' is a combination of the two that makes more linguistic sense; therefore, using this source in this way constitutes OR and SYNTH. I'm going to have to remove it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Although I'm glad you recognise that "just because the categorisation of Slavic languages into North and South is far less common than into West, East and South does not make 'North Slavic languages' an illegitimate subject", I also think you are greatly exaggerating the problems within this article. For example, when you say that "this article is a loose collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with rampant generalisations to imply an inherent connection between people who just so happen to be speakers of North Slavic languages, which is then extrapolated to claim a political-cultural-religious unity amongst all post-1991 sovereign states that happen to have a North Slavic-speaking majority population". Where on Earth do you find these claims of a "political-cultural-religious unity" among North Slavs? All it speaks of is the common ancestry and (some) shared characteristics of these peoples in terms of language and culture. There is a clear religious divide between Catholics and Orthodox Norh Slavs, which both the article and some of the sources speak of, as well as a clear political divide (NATO/EU/US-allied and CIS/Russia-allied).

I already spoke of this in the relevant edit summary, but the sources for population numbers in that table were copied from the respective Wikipedia articles for each of the nationalities and/or states. It was maybe lazy or rushed on my part to not check them beforehand, but I think I can be excused for thinking that if they've been in use on Wikipedia for years then surely they'd at least pass basic reliability for this article too? Assuming the sources were indeed as bad as you claim (most days I'm currently spending more than half of my waking hours at work, so I cannot check each and every one of them now), I deleted them and the entire table from the page. It didn't really add much to the article anyway. However, if they were indeed full of nationalist propaganda, then I suggest bringing this up in all the article talk pages where they've been used. Though good luck getting through to anyone there, as many of those pages are ethnic nationalist playgrounds.

Your suggestion that the same treatment you propose here might need to be applied to articles for West, South, and East Slavs is an intriguing one. However, I do not think you will have much luck. Whereas the South Slavic category makes sense thanks to differences that developed throughout history due to geographic distance between North and South Slavs, the East/West grouping - especially today - exists almost solely for political reasons and you will be met with armies of devout and nationalist Slavs arguing that they're East or West because they don't want to be grouped with "the enemy". The North and South divide is just much more reasonable from a scholarly POV that focuses on language, customs, geography, history, etc. And yes, this article does place a large emphasis on language, but that's because languages are the key element in the formation and delineating of ethnic groups, followed by other cultural elements and (especially historically) religion.

What's quite sad is that there have been at least several attempts to vandalise this article in the past, plus maybe more that I haven't witnessed. All of them seemed to be politically motivated with crypto-nationalist agendas based entirely on anecdotal evidence. Others have also gutted the page, but most of them were well-intentioned like yourself and some have actually helped to improve the quality here. Overall, I think as a long-existing historical concept in science (yes, the racist stuff too, whether we like it or not) and cultural studies that seems to have gained some more spotlight in recent years this topic deserves its own article. It 100% deserves it considering we have separate pages for South, East, and West Slavs. If you feel there are some issues with it, though again I feel you have greatly exaggerated them to justify this nomination, then we should aim to improve them instead of binning all its contents or attempting to transfer them to some other article where many people will keep deleting them due to their personal views against this. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you think I am well-intentioned; I think the same about you. However, some of your texts, choice of sources, and the way you represent sources, unfortunately do not comply to some of English Wikipedia's rules and standards. I'm trying to be fair and balanced towards you, others who have contributed, to the texts and sources, and to the images. I don't (yet) think this article necessarily needs to be deleted, or merged with another (as the others have noted, North Slavic languages is the most obvious candidate for a merger), but I don't see a lot of reasons to keep this as a separate independent article anymore.

To your specific remarks:

The 'claims of a "political-cultural-religious unity" among North Slavs' is implied by generalisations throughout the article, some differences that you mention notwithstanding, even though those differences themselves also tend to be based on yet more generalisations, e.g. 'There is a clear religious divide between Catholics and Orthodox Nor[t]h Slavs', which I actually doubt, and which is part of the reason why I previously successfully AfD'd the articles 'Catholic Slavs' and 'Eastern Orthodox Slavs'.
'if they've been in use on Wikipedia for years then surely they'd at least pass basic reliability for this article too'. In practice, copypasting texts and sources from one article to another is tolerated on English Wikipedia (I sometimes do it myself; I often check the source first before I copypaste the text to another article, unless I have no reason to doubt it), but just because it has been here for a very long time doesn't mean it's true. People and texts can be wrong for a very long time. I'm glad you decided to remove the section, as it was becoming clear it was untenable.
'if they were indeed full of nationalist propaganda, then I suggest bringing this up in all the article talk pages where they've been used.' Indeed, I may well do so per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In fact, I've already marked some similar issues on the West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs pages today after starting this AfD (although those pages probably don't merit an AfD just yet).
'Though good luck getting through to anyone there, as many of those pages are ethnic nationalist playgrounds.' That is a good reason for fixing those pages, too. Besides, a case can be made that this article "North Slavs" also kind of started out as an 'ethnic nationalist playground'; although you state on your user page that you 'reject nationalism', you do state 'This user is a North Slav.' and 'This Slavic user is interested in the heritage of his ancestors', so one may be forgiven for thinking that you wrote this article because you wanted to tell the world about your own ethnic identity rather than contributing to the sum of all knowledge. Which leads me to your final point:
'this topic deserves its own article. It 100% deserves it considering we have separate pages for South, East, and West Slavs. (...) many people will keep deleting [the contents of this article] due to their personal views against this'. I'm afraid I'll have to remind you that Wikipedia is not in the business of WP:Righting Great Wrongs, such as 'Spread[ing] the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community'. I think that may well have been your motivation behind creating this article, not only because of what you say here, but also the comment you left behind in the edit summary when you first created this article on 28 April 2017, namely 'About time this view got a proper article on Wikipedia'. As Doremo also noted above: 'the article contains a lot of original research and tries to present a fringe perspective as relatively mainstream'. I can understand that you really like this view, and that you want to tell other people about the view, and that more of them will agree with the view, and that you're disappointed by people who repeatedly disagree with the view, but unfortunately, that cannot be an argument for creating or keeping an article. Without SIGCOV, it just won't meet general notability. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I started this article because I was interested in and (for the most part) agreed with the concept, but this is true for all Wikipedians. We choose to get involved in certain topics or areas of research due to our personal curiosity or agreement with them, but (at least most of us, I hope) try to contribute in a way that remains unaffected by our own opinions. If we create pages for things we are not interested in then the content is likely to be of inferior quality, because who in their right mind would dedicate so much of their free time to writing about stuff they find boring without getting paid for it? In other words: our interests guide our choice of research, but not our method. How able we are to achieve true neutrality in practice is another matter entirely, as we are all human. Anyway, thank you for the kind words and understanding. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and in fact my personal experience mirrors yours in this regard. I myself originally started out writing stuff on Dutch Wikipedia about (my) purported ethnic identity (amongst other things) as well, and it is part of the reason why my username is still 'Nederlandse Leeuw' ('Dutch Lion', which is a heraldic symbol of Dutch national identity). However, I soon discovered that, although we're allowed and even encouraged to write about things that interest us, we should make a clear distinction between opinions and facts, and always comply with the rules and scope of Wikipedia. In fact, if we are too emotionally or personally attached to a topic, we can best avoid writing about it, because our feelings may cloud our judgement, objectivity and neutrality. If our work is then challenged by others who rightfully point to Wikipedia's standards, that leads to a lot of stress and frustration. I can see that you experience some of that now, and I know that can be tough, because I've often been in your current position.

At some point, I realised that there are certain styles of writing, certain articles, certain choices of sources, certain representations of sources, that I cannot maintain against Wikipedia's quality standards, and that I had to let go of some of my early editing practices and work. I stopped defending poorly written stuff from my early days and let it be deleted; in rare cases, I even nominated some of my own early articles for deletion, because I could not justify their continued existence in the face of what I had learnt to be Wikipedia's rules, standards and good practices. (And indeed, sometimes this concerned articles about my ideas about my own ethnic identity). The Dutch Wikipedia community praised my self-criticism, my willingness to critically review my own work and my ability set aside my personal pride and opinions.

Although I won't claim to be completely objective and balanced by now, because I remain just as human as you, this approach has allowed me to become a much better Wikipedian over the years (if I do say so myself). By now, I am much better at making sure that the stuff that I write about - because I find it interesting, and would like other people to read about - is likely to pass Wikipedia's standards and to be mostly kept indefinitely. That also means I sometimes have to let go of something I wrote if it turns out not to pass Wikipedia's standards after all, because certain rules exist that I didn't know about or failed to properly comply to, or because more refined rules have been established in the meantime that have raised the quality standards that some of my earlier work can no longer comply to.

I think I'm reading in your responses here and in your recent edits on the North Slavs article that you are now in this process of trying to find a new balance between your personal interests on the one hand, and complying to Wikipedia's standards so that you can ensure that what you write will be kept on the other. Unlike the authors of the 'Eastern Orthodox Slavs' and 'Catholic Slavs', who have both been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's rules, you show a willingness to learn, to follow the rules, to admit your mistakes and improve your editing practices, which I really appreciate and would like to encourage. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, all of this is actually extremely useful and helpful... I think it might be the best advice I've ever gotten from anyone on Wikipedia. Yes, as you say, I think I'm trying to find that balance right now. I guess this is why I'm letting the "Population", "History", and "Religion" sections go with such ease, which would've come to me with much more difficulty - if at all - in the past. Thanks again for your help and very kind words. Also, I think you're doing some stellar work right now in the North Slavs article, for example with how you picked out what Ford wrote much more accurately than I or other Wikipedians did before (skim-reading is not always the best method, even if less tiring and time effective heh). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since it's me who started North Slavic languages once upon a time, please allow me to chime in. First, I fully agree with Nederlandse Leeuw that the whole concept of North Slavs is highly questionable. The way this article looks now (and also the way it looked until a few days ago) creates the impression as if we were dealing with an ethnic group. But let's ask ourselves one question: how many Poles, Ukrainians, Russians etc. would identify themselves as "North Slavs"? The answer is, obviously: (almost) nobody. There is no such thing as a North Slavic community. So who are, in that case, the North Slavs? According to the article, it's the speakers of West and East Slavic languages lumped together. But is that enough for an article about the people and not just the languages?
The Slavic languages constitute a huge linguistic continuum, almost without any clear demarcations. Subdivisions are arbitrary by definition. Whereas it's true that the division into West, East and South Slavic is most common, one should realise that it doesn't tell the whole story. Most importantly, it is not a genetic subdivision: we know pretty sure that there have never been West or South Slavic protolanguages, and from that point of view, I have serious doubts about the value of articles like West Slavs a well. Especially the division between South Slavic and the rest seems to be based on geography rather than linguistic characteristics. In terms of grammar, for example, Slovene is endlessly more similar to West Slavic than to Bulgarian, but lexically, Bulgarian is often closer to Russian than to its direct neighbours Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian. It not black and white, in any case.
All I can conclude is that the distinction North vs. South Slavs is primarily a concept based on the fact that they are geographically separated from each other by non-Slavic people. Of course, West and East Slavic languages share certain characteristics that set them apart them from South Slavic, but there are just as many characteristics that link South Slavic to East Slavic or West Slavic. The least I would expect from an article about North Slavs is an accurate description of what really sets them apart from the South Slavs, but the fact that the article South Slavs doesn't even mention them, make me more than suspicious. Although the article has much improved after it was nominated for deletion (for example by removing such nonsense as a list of North Slavic cities), I still believe redirecting and moving part of its contents to North Slavic languages would be a better solution. Should it be decided that the article stays, I would at least suggest reformulating the first sentence, because the phrase "not universally accepted" is quite an understatement. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you here, IJzeren Jan, and thanks for chiming in! You make good points about how arbitrary linguistic subdivisions can be, and that the East-West-South consensus could be challenged. As I said earlier, in linguistics and biology, taxonomic reclassification based on new evidence and insights is not unheard of. But the evidence so far brought forth in this article and North Slavic languages is not compelling enough for Wikipedia to accept it, let alone 'to take it as a viable premise and run with it' (as Doremo put it) to establish an ethnic identity through extrapolation and SYNTH. I am seeing a consensus emerging here that a redirect/merger to North Slavic languages is the best solution, and to remove all material that isn't remotely connected to linguistics. I'm glad you also support my idea to review the added value of the articles West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs as well; I propose that we do that once a decision about North Slavs and North Slavic languages has been taken. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed! In general, I don't think there's much additional value in having separate articles dealing with "speakers of languages X, Y and Z" if that's really the only connection there is between them. Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is exactly why I'm reviewing all these articles' added value in general, and the specific claims made and sources used in particular. Samotny is right in observering that they often are or can become little more than playgrounds for ethnic nationalists, when they have little to no scholarly value beyond linguistics. Incidentally, while you're here, what do you think of the approach (first proposed by Samotny in 2017, and yesterday applied by me) to model the North Slavic languages article after the South Germanic one? I think this is about the most reasonable approach that Wikipedia can take to all the different concepts of "North Slavs" and "North Slavic languages", none of which are widely accepted, and all of which contradict each other. They're notable enough to be mentioned briefly in a list, but Wikipedia cannot support any concept in particular as the "correct" one. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I think that is a very good solution. However, in the case of North Slavic languages, I would still suggest working with subheaders than with a long list for a better reading experience, especially since the text after the bullet points is of very unequal length. Not only is the North versus South Slavic distinction clearly the most common of all uses, a separate header would also make it easier to merge material from North Slavs, which deals with the distinction as well. Besides, the other uses appear to be both incidental and obsolete. The fictional languages might warrant a separate subheader, too. Want me to give it a shot? Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the question. I was struggling with that as well. I think that at least the constructed languages merit a separate section, because they are "real" in the sense that they have been constructed and so there is evidence of their existence. All other concepts of "North Slavic" are just hypothetical. I removed the section heading that was there when I found the article, but I think you're justified in putting it back.

On the other hand, although the article currently gives most attention to the North versus South hypothesis (or the West+East hypothesis, if you will), most of those texts were added by Samotny in an effort to support his favourite definition of "North Slavic", and most of these sources are problematic (for the reasons we have outlined here, in the tags, in the edit summaries and on the talk pages). This far greater attention doesn't mean that this definition is actually the most common in all literature, nor necessarily the most favoured by linguists. It may simply be WP:UNDUE. Moreover, every time the North Slavs or North Slavic languages articles claimed this was the most common use of the terms, the sources consistently failed verification. As far as I have seen, there is no reason to assume this hypothesis is the most common, let alone the most plausible. As far as I'm concerned, they are all equally implausible. My suggestion is to remove all the badly sourced, SYNTH and WP:UNDUE materials, and give all these hypotheses more or less equal attention. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you might be right about that. Several authors use the term "North Slav(on)ic" in various contexts, but in most cases they don't really define them. Berger, for example, seems to treat Czech and Slovak as something transitional between North and South Slavic. There are exceptions, though. Combrie and Corbett is definitely a standard work. On p. 114 they write: "There is little doubt, however, that by the ninth century there emerged at least three distinct dialects, South Slavonic, East Slavonic and West Slavonic, the latter two grouped as North Slavonic". And then there's this document of the Russian Academy of Sciences (p. 39): "Севернославянские языки. Восточнославянские языки и западнославянские языки, вместе противопоставленные южнославянским языкам. Это объединение не является особым таксоном в иерархии славянской языковой семьи, а выделяется для характеристики географического распространения явлений, не известных южнославянским языкам." (translation: "North Slavic languages. East Slavic languages and West Slavic languages together in contrast with the South Slavic languages. This combination is not a particular taxon in the hierarchy of the Slavic language family, but stands out to characterize the geographical distribution of phenomena that are not known to the South Slavic languages."). But I have to agree that it's not much. Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a largely unrecognised concept that doesn't warrant an article, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely untrue, as shown by the numerous, interesting, long discussions that have emerged from this nomination. The problem is not that the concept is "largely unrecognised", but that there are several differing definitions of it and the article that I and others wrote did not reflect that appropriately enough or in a manner good enough for the encyclopedic standards we aim for at Wikipedia. Whether that warrants a rewrite, redirect or deletion is something we'll see. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: Thank you for chipping in, IJzeren Jan, and for your continued efforts here, Nederlandse Leeuw. As I said at your talk page, I've had to disappear for a bit due to work. However, the author of one of the papers has gotten back to me and just updated his paper with a new version that mentions all the licences used. He also claims it was "reviewed by two other professionals", but I'm not sure what that means exactly and he did not elaborate. My guess is that it was a legitimate effort by several scholars, but most likely published only online on academia.edu? In any case, I think you are correct that I favoured one view above others in this Wikipedia article. When I first wrote the North Slavs page I had based the text on a much smaller number of sources, but my own research and yours into the subject since then shows that there are various concepts using this name that differ a bit. Although I still think the combination of East/West seems to be the most common one, the Rusyns especially and sometimes Slovaks too are the two ethnic groups that are in some sources grouped as South Slavs instead. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to North Slavic languages, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mihajlo Vučetić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, grain merchant and shipowner who founded a shipping company and was a Lloyds shareholder is not notable. Passing mentions only (namechecks) in sources, no in-depth coverage or historical notability established. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Italy, and Serbia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This is an article that is only a fortnight old. I suspect that full searches would require us to know the Italian and German (Austrian) versions of his name, which google searches will not necessarily recognise. The article implies that he was a pioneer of Serbian trade from Trieste. That might be enough to make him notable, but we really only have a stub so far. WP:DONOTBITE: this appears to be written by a new editor, who has had to go through an article for acceptance process. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found several paragraphs about him (in German) in the Wikipedia Library, and added it in. I found a book n Google Books that writs about him: page 579 of Historical Abstracts: Modern history abstracts, 1775-1914. Part A. (1996). United States: American Bibliographical Center, CLIO.

So that makes him seem notable to me and I didn't even search Serbia or Italian sources. CT55555 (talk) 04:59, 22 June 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) 06:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nairisha[edit]

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

No reliable sources in the article, BLP prod objected with no reliable sources (restored and removed again). Search returned no reliable English language sources, non English sources may exist but seems unlikely. WP:NACTOR does not seem to apply in this situation. Analysis of sources currently in article being 1, 2, 4-9, 14, 15, 21. appears to be user generated. 3, 10, 17-20 does not seem reliable. Rest seems to be primary or has an COI with the subject. Justi yaya 09:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Canada. Justi yaya 09:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Osarius 10:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Non-notable. --Baggaet (talk) 12:39, 16 June 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 14:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Gone Dead[edit]

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

I can't find any third-party coverage to indicate notability. I checked for recent news and conducted a search for material during their original run but nothing came up. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, United States of America, and Utah. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing that shows notability including no reviews for their music. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 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) 13:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eswatini–Japan relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really is not much to these relations except diplomatic recognition. Eswatini has very little relations outside of Africa. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of diplomatic missions in Eswatini. HenryTemplo (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Japan has no diplomatic mission in Eswatini. So it doesn't seem logical to merge there. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes me question why this article was started in the first place! However, this makes me think that Japan had/has a diplomatic mission of some description in Eswatini (But it is based in South Africa), thus the merge. However, I feel a Redirect may be more appropriate in light of this. HenryTemplo (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All relevant content is already covered in Foreign relations of Eswatini. It also seems like another article of this nature was deleted via AfD, discussion here. ~XyNq^t_c 16:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to List of diplomatic missions in Eswatini, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Delete. Nothing to merge. Yilloslime (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so obscure, there's nothing that really discusses the subject. Fails GNG. Jacona (talk) 10:29, 23 June 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 and moved to Semecarpus magnificus. This seems to have been resolved satisfactorily. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semecarpus magnificum[edit]

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

Species doesn't exist. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Indonesia, and Oceania. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The species Semecarpus magnificus seems to exist (See [11] and [12]). It is also native to the island of New Guinea. My guess is that the creator did a typo. YorkshireExpat has asked the creator about this on their talk page. Hopefully they respond. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the creator doesn't get back, it would be better to start again. MPGuy2824 is almost certainly correct, but the existing article has a single source that's very hard to trace. There is no author, and a google search for the specific name of the book doesn't come up with a book of that title, which means our readers cannot verify the article's contents. The description is also a poor fit to the herbarium samples in MPGuy's references, though this might just mean that whoever collected the herbarium samples didn't fancy lugging 5-foot long leaves around (or finding a press big enough to dry them out), and chose unreasonably small, young leaves. Either way, if the creator doesn't come back, there's a lot to be said for deleting the existing article and starting a new one at the correct name, using MPGuy's references as sources. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect a typo is the case. A cursory look through a lot of databases (IPNI, GBIF, JSTOR, Tropicus, Kew Gardens records) confirm only two names: magnificus and magnifica which are equivalent (K. Schum as botanical author). NeverRainsButPours (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's certainly possible to create a stub at "Semecarpus magnificus", but a Google Scholar search only finds sources which include the species in checklists, but with no description, and I agree that the existing description is too poorly sourced at present to retain. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found the original description by Karl Schumann in Die Flora von Kaiser Wilhelms Land online, so a description can be written based on this. The dimensions he gives are a bit less, 6 m high tree with 1.2 m long leaves.

Interestingly, Schumann uses the feminine magnifica (common with trees e.g. Taxus baccata, Fagus sylvatica), whereas PoWO has now 'corrected' all the adjectival epithets to the masculine. IPNI also has magnificus, with a note about the original. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead this is why I couldn't just move the article giving the benefit of the doubt on a spelling error. The information was unverifiable as it stood. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat: I suggest moving it to Semecarpus magnificus with references to IPNI and PoWO, and deleting the existing description as unreferenced. The original description is here, on page 65. It's in Latin and German; I can understand much of the latter, but unfortunately it won't copy as text to paste into Google Translate for the rest, and I haven't had time to retype it yet. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. To whom it may concern, please feel free to close this AfD. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Fathy (footballer, born 1995)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in WP:BEFORE, nor in sources given on the page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rowinski[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Sources are not independent (press releases, interviews, self-published). Lacks in-depth coverage in RS. MB 05:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MB 05:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability criteria. --Baggaet (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in article and no sources in article that support WP:GNG. ProQuest just finds PR Newswire releases. On Newspapers.com, I found a brief bio when he was one among many nominees for a local award. I find many pieces online written by him but nothing independent about him. Schazjmd (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable businessperson without WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:41, 17 June 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 23:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete lists of French departments of armorial communes as of March 2012[edit]

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

These articles is maybe have been incomplete in the English Wikipedia, while in the French Wikipedia, the list is very complete. This would be complete if this page was moved to Wikimedia Commons immediately, and creating article gallery. Heraldrist (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the lists of French commune coat of arms that are incomplete since March 2012:

Armorial of the Communes of Calvados
Armorial of the Communes of Charente
Armorial of the Communes of Charente-Maritime (incomplete list as of May 2014, but I should to do this maybe have been completely abandoned)
Armorial of the Communes of Eure
Armorial of the Communes of Orne (incomplete list as of April 2022, but I should to do this and maybe have been completely abandoned)
and everything on Template:Armorials of French communes by department. Save for some departments like Nord and Oise for example because they're splitted into four sub-pages due to their size and all departments of France (e.g. Manche, Seine-Maritime, and Vendée) as had they had some info. They can be recreated if info about the designs and adoption were added.

Who's with me on this nom? Heraldrist (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and France. Heraldrist (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too trivial for encyclopaedia. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of articles like this exist. Category:Municipal coats of arms. Can the information be moved to Wikimedia Commons? Dream Focus 15:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted this discussion but can not seem to remove it from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 9 page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, WP:NOTGALLERY. Fram (talk) 15:55, 21 June 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!} 05:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmouda AL Ameri[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG; no sources in my WP:BEFORE checks. Similar to a slew of other recent athlete pages up for deletion here with only database sourcing, which isn't sufficient coverage. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iseult https://m.goalzz.com/default.aspx?player=172566

https://m.goalzz.com/default.aspx?team=51611 2.50.150.51 (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles a mess, sourcing's a mess, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb@Iseult@Shellwood@Spiderone@GiantSnowman

Sock of article creator. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she\|they\|xe) 01:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
kindly find the football manger profile . ^[1] . thanks Mosultan2021 (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] References ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20220616205518/https://m.goalzz.com/default.aspx?player=172566

Delete - some basic stats sites and a few forum posts are far from the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. No detailed coverage in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she\|they\|xe) 01:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Spiderone @Iseult@Shellwood dear ALL thanks for your support kindly remove the message for article for deletion thanks Khaledahmed1992 (talk) 09:39, 22 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austrian television series[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Precisely what WP:NOTDIR says we should NOT have! No years, genres, sources, actors, writers, channels, et cetera, are provided. It's open-ended too. Basically, creator dumped the categorization system into an article. A simple copy-paste comes complete with letters. Someone else later added italics. gidonb (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Television, Entertainment, and Austria. gidonb (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a category for Austrian television series would serve the exact same purpose, assuming there isn't one already. XtraJovial (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could easily be expanded into a sourced tabled list. Lists of films and TV series by country are perfectly acceptable here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We just don't know if this one day would become a valid list. Maybe yes, maybe no. We cannot crystal ball. As things stand, WP:NOTDIR applies. gidonb (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that any stub created in the history of Wikipedia will ever be expanded. We create articles in good faith and trust to the wisdom of the masses that eventually it will become a good article. I would argue that a comprehensive List of Austrian series with basic details would be more worthwhile than having some stubs on series. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing. We should not crystal ball that stubs will be expanded. Maybe they will, maybe not. It's all good. Stubs can and should have value as they are. When nominated, we judge articles on current merits (not on fantasies) and when an article is a stub, this PARTICULAR fact does works against survival. For example, a topic will be more likely to be fully contained (without hitting WP:UNDUE) in the scope of another article, when all we have is a stub. On the other hand, stub status does not mean that an article will be necessarily deleted, merged, or redirected. Unless an extreme stub, the impact should be ONLY on the probability to survive and does NOT mean that it must go. gidonb (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid list article, plenty of blue links, all of them related to a specific category. List are more useful than categories because they can be expanded to hold more information. WP:CLN clearly states you shouldn't delete one because you prefer another. Dream Focus 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DF, could you please explain how this list article is "valid" when WP:NOTDIR says that articles should not be simple listings without contextual information. Your opinion skips the policy-based deletion rationale and concentrates on the obvious (at least to me). Of course there is no problem with categories and directories (plus navigation boxes!) living side by side if all follow our policies and guidelines! That's NOT the point of the nomination. gidonb (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you link to links to Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria which explains things better. Dream Focus 23:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't. Your link is about the criteria for inclusion in the list and what these criteria say about the list. Also important, but again NOT the focus of this nomination. This nomination is about the lack of context, detailed in the right there linked Provide context for the reader. The idea is that categories (at WP by design limited to include notable items) and articles, including lists, have slightly different functions, HENCE categories and lists can live perfectly well side by side. All articles, including lists, must provide at least some context. Categories do not need to provide any context beyond location (as in narrower than, less narrow than) in the knowledge tree. By lack of context, bare lists and extreme stubs do not meet this very low yet very important article bar. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, gidonb. I think this sums up the situation nicely. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent sources showing that WP:NLIST is met, and a category is better for navigational purposes. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use improvement, with more sources and more information about each series. But the topic is certainly notable, as are the other lists in ((WorldTV)). Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and its done better in the category. scope_creep^Talk 13:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- But it passes WP:NLIST with flying colors. The overall topic of the list is notable: whole books have been written about the Austrian television industry, e.g. Das österreichische Fernsehen in geschichtsphilosophischer Sicht, 1980. And the individual list items are notable in themselves, as TV series almost invariably are. Compare to List of British television programmes, which gives the genre for each entry, or List of French television series, which gives genre, English title, year, summary etc. This article could easily be upgraded to these standards. Is the nominator planning to propose the British and French lists for deletion too? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - looks like a reasonable navigational list (related to Wikipedia:Contents). There was one redlink, which I removed. Also worth noting that as I started to click on the entries, we have an awful lot of articles that literally just say "X if an Austrian television series" and nothing else. I PRODded one, but came across a half dozen others just in the first dozen or so links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The poor article quality could be fixed by Google Translate of the articles in de:Kategorie:Fernsehserie (Österreich), which has 151 entries compared to 52 in Category:Austrian television series. Most of the German language articles (e.g. de:Die Ibiza Affäre) give genre, years etc., which could be added to the list. The list has plenty of potential. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian television seems to be a very poorly developed area on here. It is to be expected as anybody who would likely watch it would be editing German Wikipedia. All of the stubs can be expanded, and missing articles on actors started. I don't want to spend my summer editing Austrian TV articles. There's 151 articles in the German Wikipedia category, I'm pretty sure most of them could be used to create a decent tabled list with some sourced facts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put the first 20 or so into a table using data from the German wiki. I suppose sources should be added. Not sure if alpha sequence is best, but the table is sortable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been restructured into a sortable table with genre, years, episodes, seasons, and some sample references copied from the German wiki. This should not affect whether it belongs in Wikipedia, since the discussion should be about potential, but invalidates the deletion arguments given above. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job Aymatth, thank you. Notability can be seen in the German article links regardless of current status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German equivalent article, w:de:Liste österreichischer Fernsehproduktionen, is a bit broader in scope and has a lot more entries. It is organized chronologically, by decade, but I am not sure that is a good idea. This article has a sortable table, so readers can see it chronologically if they want. The German version has a column for "remarks", which does seem useful. Perhaps someone interested in the subject could translate these remarks for this list. I would also like to see an introduction covering the subject as a whole. There must be plenty of sources, but I do not understand German enough to take that on. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:04, 22 June 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!} 04:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unwritten (House)[edit]

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

Non-notable episode. Got a WP:ROUTINE review from IGN but I found no other sources. One review is not enough to make a TV episode notable. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The edit summary for the redirect, "unsourced" [13], was untrue, since the article already contained a link to an AV Club review. Whether that and the IGN item are too "routine" to qualify is a different question. The AV Club review goes beyond recapitulating the plot, offering commentary on the overall direction the show had taken up to that point. The Los Angeles Times went to the trouble of asking a neurophysiologist, a neurosurgeon, and a bioethicist about the episode [14]. I've found myself sharing the "redirect the page that reads like a fan wiki" sentiment in the past, but I don't think that applies here. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also at least a mention in this book, but I am unable to see the relevant page in the GB preview. XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been found giving it significant coverage so the general notability guidelines are kept. Dream Focus 04:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now reviews (which are usually required for films/tv shows to pass notability requirements) are now being called 'ROUTINE' and not enough to pass guidelines? What is a 'routine' review? Did Siskel and Ebert reviews not count for decades because they 'routinely' reviewed movies each week? Review cited and ones listed above pass guidelines. Another failed WP:BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid AfD per above. Artw (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources pointed out by XOR'easter. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:00, 20 June 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by Gaetano Chierici[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The article for Gaetano Chierici is not that long, so a spinout article of relevant content may not be needed. Just as listing the names of all the films an actor has been in, or an author has written, is a valid information and navigational link, valid spin-off article, so it is acceptable to list artwork an artist is notable for. Dream Focus 13:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing broken and WP:NPOV. Lists of artworks by individual artists have appeared as Wikipedia articles since time immemorial (2001). Monet, Van Gogh, Chierici, and scores of other artists have their works listed on individual list pages. Good for the goose good for the Chierici. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Move content to Gaetano Chierici as that article is not that long. The Chierici bio article certainly is not long enough to justify having a separate stand-alone list article of his works. Drdpw (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Better for the main article. The main article itself is still not eloborate enough & a separate article invites the addition of non-notable items and violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, under this interpretation all lists of paintings by any artist could be removed from Wikipedia as "directories" or whatever legalese handfuls of RfC editors use to get rid of perfectly fine pages. Common sense alone would keep this page as is, and WP:NPOV kicks in as well (RfC editors shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which reputable recognized artist can be represented by a list-of-paintings page). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Gaetano Chierici, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Keep and Oppose Merge . Invalid deletion argument. A list of works by an artist does not fall under any of the 6 criteria listed at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A list of works by a given artist has context as it is limited to a single artist and their creative output (so criteria 1 does not apply). Likewise, it isn't loosely associated because the works are all by a single artist (so criteria 2 does not apply). A list of works is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations because the original works of art created by an artist are part of what gives them notability for encyclopedic coverage. (so criteria 3 does not apply). A list of works has no genealogical basis (so criteria 4 does not apply). A list of works is not an Electronic program guides (so criteria 5 does not apply). And a list of works is not a resource for conducting business. (so criteria 6 does not apply). In short, there is no policy based application of NOTDIRECTORY to a list of works by an artist or other creative professional. As there is no valid rationale for deletion, a merge per WP:ATD is not a valid choice. Any merger should occur through the normal channels at WP:MERGE and not through AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oppose Merge per User:4meter4. Generally visual arts editors prefer to keep these lists separate, & rightly so, and it should not be for the drive-by Afd audience to decide otherwise. This nom has no arguments for deletion, & should not have been put as an afd. If you want a merge, propose one. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oppose Merge. A while back, a list of works was spun off from the Giovanni Boldini article (diffs) and it looks like an improvement to me, giving both article and list room to grow. Per Randy Kryn, not broke, don't fix. Ewulp (talk) 23:13, 24 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WUPT-CA[edit]

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

No sources; notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't get to the sources and databases I'd want to see right now to check this, but being affiliated with UPN and a Class A make me really hesitant to say this won't meet GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Station meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 16 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kaiman[edit]

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

This article has remained essentially unchanged for more than two years, and I believe it runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. Searching the Internet provides practically nothing unrelated to the sexual misconduct allegations. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:TNT. This person exists, and has a few thousand followers, but is as of 2022 a law student, not even admitted to the bar, thus failing my standards as well. There's no evidence at all that he passes WP:CREATIVE as a writer. The biggest chunk of this page chiefly concerns a one-time sex scandal in which he was involved, and for which he was neither charged nor indicted, creating a serious BLP issue here (if he'd been indicted, it would be another story). The page appears to have been edited in such a way as to make it incomprehensible. I'm not apologizing for sexual harassment, I just think that sadly, it's so common as to be run of the mill. This page is not even a stub, but a hot mess. Finally, it's a problem because a potentially notable person, who is entirely innocent, shares the same name. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing I could find with a Google search from before the accusations that was actually about the journalist was this, which I don't believe constitutes significant coverage. Hatman31 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been updated, so there isn't much to the argument that it is "essentially unchanged for more than two years", which is a specious argument for deletion, anyway. It does not run afoul of BLP:1E because the article includes 9 sources which stand by themselves and have nothing to do with any one supposed BLP:1E. Someone above objects to this wiki entry by saying "The biggest chunk of this page chiefly concerns a one-time sex scandal", which is entirely untrue: the main body of the article is 240 words; of these, only 62 have anything to do with any sex scandals of any sort; i.e., 75% of the article is pure biography unrelated to the supposed "sex scandal". A further argument is that someone else shares the last name? What kind of AFD argument is that?. Finally, someone googled and found one article from before the "scandal." Congratulations. Did anybody notice that the article includes numerous sources also from before any scandal allegations? For example, the fellow wrote for Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Guardian," The Atlantic and Foreign Policy years prior; he was a Fulbright Scholar (no mean feat), a Foreign Press Center Japan fellow, and he was recognized by the Pulitzer Center. Seriously, how many people are even remotely close to claiming such a trifecta? Then you have National Public Radio claiming in its own voice that Kaiman was "Granted Rare Access To Pyongyang Celebration." How can people claim with a straight face this doesn't meet WP:GNG? XavierItzm (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a journalist doesn't automatically confer notability. Looking at the sources individually:
1. Pulitzer Center - Essentially a directory listing that says he resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations.
2. The Atlantic - Another directory listing from a site he worked at, doesn't confer notability.
3. Foreign Policy - An article written by Kaiman, which does nothing to confer notability.
4. Reason - Another article written by Kaiman.
5. The Hudson School - Another directory listing, this time of alumni.
6. LA Times - Another directory listing for a paper he worked at.
7. NPR - An interview with Kaiman about North Korea. Not a profile or detailed coverage of Kaiman himself.
8. Reason again - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
9. Foreign Press Center Japan - A very brief piece about a weeklong visit to Japan. Again, no profile or details about Kaiman himself outside of places he visited.
10. LinkedIn - A social media page of his. No notability conferred.
11. Deadline - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
12. New York Times - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
13. Commentary - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations, but only briefly at the beginning. The article is more about his accuser and sexual misconduct allegations in general.
14. South China Morning Post - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
15. Slate - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
16. Reason again - Another directory listing for a site he worked at.
To reiterate, the only coverage that is not directory listings or about things he himself wrote or covered is related to the sexual misconduct allegations. A big list of references might seem impressive at a glance, but there's nothing there. This article only exists because of the allegations, and Kaiman is not notable for anything outside of them. There were never any sort of legal proceedings or attempts at proof related to these accusations, which potentially creates WP:BLPCRIME issues as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice goalpost moving. Keen observers will notice the original AfD complaint never mentioned WP:GNG. Not to mention the mischaracterization of of sources: the Pulitzer Center citation for example, is far from having arisen from any 2018 allegations, unless one thinks the Pulitzer Center gave Kaiman his recognition following the allegations! But no: as can plainly be seen here at the Pulitzer Center, Pulitzer awarded Kaiman before August 14, 2017, before any allegations. Has the Pulitzer Center updated the bio on their awardee following the "allegations"? Sure, why not?, they want to maintain the Pulitzer Community biographies up-to-date, but it is a sad mischaracterization of the source to disregard the Pulitzer source as having arisen from the "sexual misconduct" issue as implied in the list above. The same could be argued with regard to much of the list of sources presented. Sad. But the fact remains: the individual has been covered by the WP:RS from both before and after the allegations. XavierItzm (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied that Pulitzer source existed because of the allegations. My point is simply that is it is a tiny paragraph, in other words, little more than a directory listing. I have not mentioned WP:GNG because it's not the key issue this case. GNG presumes, but does not guarantee, notability if certain criteria are met. The problem with the significant coverage in this case is that it is all related to the sexual misconduct allegations. As I already showed above, the sources fall into three categories: trivial mentions, including directory listings from places he has written for (7), sources from Kaiman himself (3), and articles about the allegations (6). None of those confer notability outside of the WP:BLP1E concern. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope that the closer will be able to see through the mischaracterisations. It is argued that "never implied that Pulitzer source existed because of the allegations" but in fact it was said that it was "Essentially a directory listing that says he resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations", when in fact it is a short bio of one of only a few handfuls of people ever recognised by the Pulitzer in this capacity, that just happens to note one among several facts of life of the awardee. So, two mischaracterisations:
*(1) an implication that the bio entry was caused by a 1E; and
*(2) that the bio entry is a list (in fact, it is not a list in any way, it is a short bio).
The same holds true for many of the above list of references and the way they have been mischaracterised, but hopefully this gives a taste of the situation. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add more, as I've made my points, but I'd suggest you take a look at WP:AGF for future reference. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per XavierItzm (talk · contribs) sources. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the cogent source analysis by Torchiest. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources prior to the sex scandal are usable towards notability because they are either not in-depth or they are connected to a publication or institution for which the subject worked or was a grant recipient, and therefore lack independence (including the Pulitzer Center source). The only sources which address the subject directly and in-depth and which are independent have to deal with the sex scandal, thereby making this topic a candidate for deletion under BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a mid level journalist that did naughty stuff, quit his job then went to law school. Nothing terribly notable about much of any of it. It would almost be better if we put a few words in the article about the LA Times (I think it was), he resigned when he was bureau chief there over the stuff that he did. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources provided regarding the article's subject demonstrates that the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 20 June 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.