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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kazan[edit]

Steven Kazan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was originally about Kazan's law firm, and then a 2012 AfD resulted in the article being moved and rescoped to be about Kazan. I cannot find any significant coverage of Kazan or his firm, searching Google, GBooks, GNews, Newspapers.com, TWL, and JSTOR. There are trivial mentions of him, quotes from him, and works by him, but nothing that significantly covers him as a person. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with above, I don't see anything for notability in sources as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion as nominator states, it was part of a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley PLC where the closure was to change the subject of this article to just Steven Kazan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as described, appears to be a very run-of-the-mill successful lawyer. BD2412 T 18:34, 4 September 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. Consensus formed around the nominator's assertion the that sourcing failed to demonstrate notability Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EXFO[edit]

EXFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the large number of references, as far as I can tell none of them meet the WP:NCORP criteria for counting toward notability. Most of them are primary. Most of the ones that aren't aren't in-depth or independent. For example, Ref 4 is not independent because it's based almost entirely with an interview from one of the company's investors. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a publicly listed company, appearing on NASDAQ although recently re-privatised. Almost 2k employees, 25 countries. That said, respect to the stance of User:Pppery and the analysis there. Chumpih ^t 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:LISTED, the existence of suitable sources still needs to be demonstrated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A quick before shows that they generate lots of press releases and routine coverage, but nobody seems to have written an in-depth article about them (much less the 3 generally preferred to establish notability) Rockphed (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, not much found that we can use for sourcing, beyond press release stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are in-depth article about them, meeting NCORP, already referenced in the article; here. Article needs improving! Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the exact source I said was not independent content in the nomination statement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with the nom, no significant secondary and independent sources, and being listed on the NASDAQ is not enough for notability. PopoDameron (talk) 01:26, 11 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treefort Media[edit]

Treefort Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Podcast company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself (rather than individual podcasts). MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Needs some work, but I would think something out there exists given the notable podcasts it produces and the awards it's been nominated for. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Royal Autumn Crest. I think there is a difference between individual podcasts receiving awards, and the company itself receiving awards. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now because the notability of a company is not inherited from its products/merchandise/works. Rather, articles should instead be made about their works if they meet GNG. If coverage or awards are for the company itself, that would be a different story. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sign of this meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I can't find SIGCOV about the company itself, just mentions in connection with its podcasts and the notable people involved. As pointed out above, WP:Notability is not inherited. Storchy (talk) 09:18, 10 September 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!} 02:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ying[edit]

Charles Ying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

the zhwiki article is equally terribly sourced, and I searched both in English and Chinese and I can't find much in the way of significant coverage, it's largely passing mentions or unreliable fan cruft (you'll note, the EL sources that were originally used here, which were fan sites and a forum have been removed for obvious reasons.) I don't see how he passes WP:NACTOR despite the blue linked filmography, all the roles were minor and I don't see how he passes WP:NMUSIC since it doesn't appear his career took off beyond the record labels promotional period. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources
  1. Hui, Bolun 許栢倫 (2016-07-13). "【專訪。影片】應昌佑婚後真男人：在娛樂圈生存比我想中難" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou debuted in 2005 but did not see results. This year, he returned to the music scene with his new song "Come Here". After doing many interviews, Ying Changyou admitted that he was not used to it at first: ... When it comes to people who have to be thankful, apart from the old boss Dawn, he is Mother. Ying Changyou's mother is Ran Xiaoling, a popular singer in Taiwan in the 1970s. Her mother was successful, but her son was struggling in the entertainment industry. Ying Changyou did not feel pressured because of this."

  2. Go, Naren 鄉奈仁 (2019-03-06). "【入行10年都冇代表作】應昌佑有歌藝冇星運 為家庭不再追夢轉做打工仔". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28 – via Yahoo! News.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "I often hear that some people give up their careers to pursue their dreams! The 39-year-old Ying Changyou (Charles) is just the opposite. For the sake of his wife and children, he would rather give up his dream and return to the office as a working family from the singer on the platform. It's just four simple words - "steady and steady"! Charles' mother was Ran Xiaoling, who was popular in Taiwan in the 1970s and was known as the "Queen of Bass Songs". In 2004, Charles signed with A Music, led by Liming. Besides him, the other singer was Wei Lan. The two sang love songs, one male and one other. The female clapped on; unfortunately, only Wei Lan was the only one who successfully bounced; in 2014, facing the 10-year contract being full, and still not having a masterpiece, Charles decided that the strong man would break his arm!"

  3. Ling (2015-07-20). "歌手應昌佑 兼職搵奶粉錢 文章版權為新傳媒集團所擁有". Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Charles himself is good at graphic design. He graduated from the Rhode Island Design University in the United States. When he returned to Hong Kong, he worked as a designer at Nike. After the singer's contract expired, he often got his money back. After the design freelance, and the invitation of friends to open a company to engage in activities together, the income is more impressive than before."

  4. "《流行經典》帶挈開騷！應昌佑淡出樂壇？". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2018-06-03. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "And Charles said that there is a new career development now, it is marketing, the company helps people do production, so he will take this job first, and he has a family and a family to do a good job, and he will no longer devote himself to singing."

  5. Go, Naren 鄉奈仁 (2019-03-08). "應昌佑娛圈路坎坷". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou returned to Hong Kong from studying in the United States in 2004, and was immediately appreciated by the musician Lei Songde. He then joined Liming's A Music as a singer and caught up with Wei Lan. It's a pity that Ying Changyou had no representative works ten years after his debut, and was forced to give up his dream of becoming an office worker because of his family."

  6. Wang, Lianlian 王連連 (2005-08-05). "告別190磅肥仔Look 應昌佑瞓身報答黎明". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou, a newcomer to the music scene supported by Liming, will release his debut album at the end of this month. Ying Changyou is very nervous and fully participates in the production work. Once a 190 pound overweight boy, he is determined to achieve good results with perseverance. ... Ying Changyou, who used to work for a big brand sneaker company, said that he was not used to the life of day and night when he first entered the industry, and he felt uncomfortable even being recognized by passers-by on the street, but after so many months, he began to get used to it."

  7. "〈娛樂乜乜乜〉還記得應昌佑嗎？" (in Chinese). NOW.com. 2016-05-24. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, Changyou Ying entered the studio after 8 years, and continued his dream of being a singer. Eric Kwok helped him make songs. During the interview, he talked about his ups and downs and shouting. ... When it comes to Ying Changyou, it is natural to think of Dawn. Many people say that Li Sheng doesn't know how to run A Music, and his singers are exhausted one by one. I basically agree, but if anyone blames Li Sheng for not holding Ying Changyou, I will definitely oppose it to the end. Did the speaker actually experience the first few years of A Music? Back then, Li Sheng was crazy to support Ying Changyou. At that time, there was only one male singer in A Music, Ying Changyou. He didn't have many songs, but he also played non-stop on TV and radio. Li Sheng gave him a share of everything ..."

  8. "图文：应昌佑获新势力歌手奖 发表获奖感言" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2007-08-04. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou won the New Power Singer Award and delivered his acceptance speech"

  9. "黎明林建岳成立东亚唱片公司 力捧应昌佑(图)" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2004-07-29. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "In addition to holding a signing ceremony with Lin Jianyue on the spot, Leon also arranged for Ying Changyou, the first to support the newcomer, to meet with the media. ... Ying Changyou, the first popular newcomer, has had a song broadcast earlier. One of the songs "Do I Still Love You" in the movie "Big City and Small Matters" is his lead singer. Ying Changyou's background is not small. Her mother, Ran Xiaoling, is a popular singer of the generation."

  10. Hui, Bolun 許栢倫 (2016-07-13). "【專訪】真毒男應昌佑：我不紅因為很少說話" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Most of his past works are related to bitter love, such as "Do I Still Love You", "How Can I Lose My Love", "It's My Bad", "Thank You for Lonely" and so on."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Charles Ying (traditional Chinese: 應昌佑; simplified Chinese: 应昌佑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. It's perfectly possible for an article subject to still pass GNG (and thus keep their article) even if they fail N-subtopic criteria. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Totally agree with both Cunard and Mellohi!, there is enough coverage in this article to support notability! As a native speaker, I can read the coverage. Gosh111131 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 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 23:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aprad[edit]

Aprad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A completely unsourced article about a movie on which I can find almost no information. I have so far been unable to find any kind of actual reviews or coverage on the movie, though admittedly any existing coverage would likely not be in English. But even most movie and film database sites do not even list the film as one of Rajesh Hamal's roles, and without any kind of reliable sources, the article cannot remain. The best I could find were a few screenshots from the film. The article was WP:PRODed a couple years back, but the nominator later changed their mind and removed the PROD, making ineligible for soft deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nepal. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nom. ~ Yeti Dai (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found no coverage in my own search. QuietHere (talk) 22:49, 5 September 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 Limonov (novel)#Film adaption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limonov, the Ballad of Eddie[edit]

Limonov, the Ballad of Eddie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of importance. Consists of two sentences and one reference. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist was hit by an edit conflict, trying again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Limonov (novel)#Film adaption. In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 19:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage[edit]

List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure if this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization explicitly verifiable with reliable sources. It implies that Republicans by default do not support same-sex marriage, which may well be true, but this title is inherently biased (failing WP:NPOV). Additionally, the list may be in a constant state of flux because personal viewpoints need not be permanent (unlike articles that explicitly detail who voted on what bill – that is established information and will not change). It also seems that votes on a bill are used as an inclusion criterion – again, this may be true, but has a hint of original research because there may be other factors influencing votes and may not be a fully representative sample. ^Complex/_Rational 19:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. ^Complex/_Rational 19:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well-referenced, valid concept. Don't agree with nom that it's de-facto implied POV. Andre🚐 20:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The use of a vote a particular way on a particular bill as justification for inclusion in the list is complete WP:SYNTH. It's not possible to define "support" in any clear way here, especially that doesn't run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The scope of this list is also fairly unclear -- it only seems to include House and Senate members rather than non-serving politicians, or those serving at other levels of government, making it even more of an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's also a pretty blatant failure of WP:LISTN here. Some of these sources might be usable to support prose concerning the overall shifting attitudes of congressional Republicans and American politicians in general. But trying to keep any sort of list like this is doomed to futility. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At the moment, this list largely appears to be a fork of the Respect for Marriage Act, especially by citing votes on that bill as a proxy criterium for determining support. Its possible scope is so enormous it would almost better be treated as a category. In 10 years, will we really want an WP:indiscriminate of all the Republican politicians who support gay marriage? What about a list of those who oppose it (if we're being fair)? The former could grow to encompass thousands, and the latter already probably would if it were created. This topic, such as it could be covered, would be better served by a prose article of the likes of "Same-sex marriage and the Republican Party in the United States" or "Same-sex marriage and politics in the United States". -Indy beetle (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Indy beetle and IP 35.xx; voting lists aren't encyclopedic. And some Republicans will have more complex views than simply "support" or "oppose". Ovinus (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Çetin Balanuye[edit]

Çetin Balanuye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I examined all of the Turkish sources. Bahcesehir, Akdeniz, and balanuye net sources are not independent. Remained news sources do not provide significant information about the person. Kadı Message 19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Philosophy, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kadı. Thanks for the warnings. I think there are several statements in the page that needs to be omitted. (Some unnecessary info about the academic background and some unncessarily long descriptions about one of the books, tenets etc. What else? Otherwise references seem valid to me. I would appreciate it if you could suggest something further to improve. Best regards. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the sources you noticed: "Bahcesehir" comes from Turkish newspapers; "Akdeniz" is a state university and biographic info comes from the official WEB site of the university. For "Balanuye.net", yes you are right, it is not independent and needs to be erased. Would you aggree? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you aggree for the corrections of these kind please let me know so that I can work on it. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in its current state, the article has some problems regarding the NOPV and NOR policies. Yet, I think the subject of the article (i.e. the person in question) meets the notability criteria. Hence, rather than deleting it, I suggest modifying the article to make it compatible with NPOV and NOR policies. I think it should be radically shortened and cleaned up, freeing it from non-significant information. The new version should also be written using more neutral language. If it is OK, I am working on a draft and will submit it for discussion here. 78.190.240.85 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — The discussion on trwiki has gained more traction that this one, where it's likely going to be deleted. I don't see any significant coverage from reliable and independent sources in the article, thus failing GNG. All of the independent sources are just mentions or interviews. The two comments above don't even have a policy-based explanation as to how this clears notability. Since the subject itself isn't notable, I don't see how a rewrite/trim will change anything. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It lacks in-depth coverage. In this case, rewriting does not help it to pass notability criterias. --Assyrtiko (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello. The subject of the article (Çetin Balanuye) seems worthy of being an entry. His name is also in the references under the Spinoza article in En-Wiki. All of his books in the field of Spinoza have been reprinted in large numbers in Turkey. I think that the mistakes in the first article about the name should be eliminated and a short article should be preserved with better resources. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check Çetin Balanuye for his contribution to Spinoza scholarship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_about_Baruch_Spinoza Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "better sources". The article creator adding a link to here from List of works about Baruch Spinoza is irrelevant. You keep saying that the subject is notable, but are yet to make an argument as to how. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of his books (Spinoza'nın Sevinci Nereden Geliyor?) hits 10th edition in 5 years. The other book (Spinoza) has made 4 editions. Don't you think that if original books on Spinoza in Turkish have found as large readership as these books indicate some sort of notability? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my best knowledge, there are no books in the field of philosophy in Turkish compared to this much large readership if they are not translations and-or commentaries. Perhaps someone can edit the entry in a more appropriate way in tune with Wiki policies? Why should we not give a chance? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of editing the article, fixing various WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues. I also removed non-significant information that does little to improve the article. Please consider the revised version for further discussions.

As for the Notability issue, I agree that the subject should qualify as he is a very distinguished and arguably the most widely read original Spinoza scholar in Turkish. I remember various reviews about his book Spinoza's Joy commenting on its effects on the area. Should I try to find and add them as references? Would it be enough to clear the notability criteria? 78.190.240.85 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edition. It is compact, clear, and objective. Congratulations. I can also provide some resources confirming the positive impact and reception of the book entitled Spinoza's Joy? In any case, the entry looks acceptable in terms of Wiki rules and regulations. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the current version of Cetin Balanuye entry. I think the candidate is one of the most read academics/philosophers in Turkey and he is worthy of being an entry. The edited version of the entry seems appropriate both for Wikipedia policies and in terms of the information and references it contains. I also think the article should be kept in its current form. flaneur (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, one sock wasn't enough and you had to create another one? ~Styyx^Talk? 06:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have added info and source about the editorial position of Cetin Balanuye: "Çetin Balanuye has been the editor-in-chief of the academic peer-reviewed journal "Ethos: Dialogues in Philosophy and Social Sciences" [ISSN 1309-1328] since 2008." Ortak.Conatus (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROF and specifically the 8th criteria reads as: "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." May this new information help us settling with the notability issue?

Ortak.Conatus (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a journal without secondary coverage about ut can be considered "major" or "well-established".

• I think this is the point where I start to ask some questions, Ortak.Conatus.

• The contributions of you, the IP address above, and Bohemiannnn (talk · contribs) on the English and Turkish Wikipedia are solely about the creation of Çetin Balanuye and the subsequent edits to deletion discussions on the respective projects, with both accounts being created around the same time, less than a month ago. This begs the obvious question: is there any conflict of interest or paid editing here?
• Are you the same person as the aforementioned IP and account or are guys a few friends who want this article kept? Or is this just a pure coincidence that an IP and two brand-new accounts participate in the same AfD and that AfD only? Though, let me tell you in advance, if you pick the third option, no one is going to believe you.
• This twitter account that shares the same name as one of the Wikipedia accounts has retweeted Balanuye a few times. Any connection to Conatus Academy or is that also pure coincidence?

Note that the article was deleted on the Turkish Wikipedia, which shares a very similar NPROF criteria with enwiki, per a deletion discussion. ~Styyx^Talk? 13:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sory, this is just nonsense! I have only one account (Ortak.Conatus) and have no idea about the other accounts you are talking about. You look too busy policing about the editors and their motivation behind keeping an entry for an author. Why not people are just devoted readers? Why don't you focus on the content? All denoted issues have been resolved one by one, but you still keep your bias. Now, perhaps it is time for you to answer: What makes you this much prejudiced of the subject? The fact that I am a new editor has nothing to do with the value of the comments, corrections and contributions I have been making for the given article. Please, try focusing on the content and stop being judgemental. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, now you say you doubt that the given Journal lacks the value of being well-established. Just read the journal's page. It has been published since 2008, been indexed by international indexes for years. Tons of scholars keep publishing with the journal. What else should one find to convince you that perpaps the content tells something true? Perhaps I am not a terrible person trying cheat you ? Would this be also possible? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know the questions are for your own sake right? If you do the things I described above, you have to disclose it. If you don't, and others figure out that you've been doing it, you're going to get blocked per the policy. It is normal for any editor to question your behaviour—creating an account just to participate in a discussion—because it's just suspicious. The fact that there is another account doing the same just adds up to it.

I have "focused on the content" in my first two messages, where I argue that the subject isn't notable, because I actually believe that the subject is non-notable. There is no prejudice in that. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right indeed. Since I am a new editor I also took your comments very seriously, learned from them. And I started reading through Wiki procedures. I understood your original objections, and that's why I tried to improve the content. If this is a sort of conflict-of-interest, I am a very devoted reader of Balanuye. In order not to be kept by subjective passion I researched the author. He is notable in many respects: He is one of the first original writer who made the name "Spinoza" accesible to millions in Turkey. Just read the comments, journals, citations about Spinoza's Joy. I thought this entry would be very valuable for other researchers trying to figure out their ways in philosophy. That's it. That simple. Otherwise I have no motivation to keep this discussion long. I only mean that I am here, in fact, as I have been taking your original objections very seriously. However, the article in the current form is completely free from any harm and perhaps valuable as an entry. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, besides everything I should thank you for helping Wiki community improve the content and make it more reasonable and humbler. I am very positive about this. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after major clean-up after AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to be a minor player in his field of study. I don't see much for sourcing. COI and socking pretty much tells me he's not notable as those only tend to pop up when a deletion is close at hand. Otherwise, I see no substantial sources we can use to keep the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of independent and reliable sources, and the fact that the discussion over at trwiki was closed as delete as well. 0xDeadbeef 05:20, 4 September 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 My Life as a Teenage Robot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Life as a Teenage Robot characters[edit]

List of My Life as a Teenage Robot characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NLIST or WP:LSC. The list has a history of WP:FANCRUFT information and is still currently having trouble even citing a single source, let alone a reliable one. Sparkl^talk 18:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Visual arts, Comics and animation, and Entertainment. Sparkl^talk 18:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FANDOM material that fails WP:ALLPLOT. There is nothing of use to even merge to anywhere because it cites zero sources and is purely original research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another overwritten and 'type what I see' self-sourced character list with a ghost town of a references section. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Lists like this generally should be kept. However, I don't see much sourcing to make it where it can be kept. Nonetheless, this is a valid redirect for My Life as a Teenage Robot per WP: ATD-M and WP:CHEAP. MoonJet (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to My Life as a Teenage Robot. There really is no need to delete in cases like these, AFD is not cleanup, and in this case the main problem is mostly a lack of effort to find sources on the part of the creator, so a merge of the most notable information to a section in the main article is the logical choice.★Trekker (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There seems to be no characters section in My Life as a Teenage Robot, oddly enough. Should this become a redirect, one should be created there, and have the most relevant information on the characters there, at least the main characters like Jenny, Brad, Tucker and Dr. Wakeman. MoonJet (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is what would be chosen, it shouldn't be merged as-is without sources, passing the buck along to the main article. There's no excuse to maintain a no-sourced status quo. Nate • (chatter) 17:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not much of an expert on WP:MOSTV, but according to WP:TVCAST, it seems that citations isn't a big concern regarding a cast of characters in the main article of a TV series. We still do have to trim out a lot of insignificant characters of course. Sparkl^talk 17:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively to round out the My Life as a Teenage Robot article with a characters section as suggested by StarTrekker and MoonJet. Daranios (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Better alternative. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Opposing merge as there are no references, any merge would violate WP:V. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The primary source is clear, that's the series itself. Primary sources are fine to verify their own content, which is also specifically called out at WP:Primary sources, point 3. So as long as there is no specific reason to assume that we have an interpretation here rather than plot summary, this does not violate WP:V. Daranios (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Without footnotes or such, how can we be sure there are no hoaxes or errors in this content? I'd accept a confirmation from someone familiar with the source material who can say this is correct. Otherwise, I stand by my vote of caution. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Based on this argument one could justify deleting all content lacking in-line citations on Wikipedia. This is not supported by WP:V nor any other policy I am aware of. Rather, we are encouraged by the guidelines to assume in good faith that the author writing our summaries here is just such a person "familiar with the source material" who would tell us "this is correct" - unless there is indication that there are hoaxes or errors, of course. If you would like to be sure, there is an easy if, err, time-consuming way: Just get back to the primary source and watch the show. Daranios (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios My reading of WP:V is different. Any content can be challenged, and once challenged, it should not be restored without citations. That's call meeting the (modern, if always written down) standards. It is the responsibility of the creator, or fans, or other interested editor to provide the sources, or, errr, watch the show, now that attention has been drawn to the article not meeting said standards. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: What's the reason to doubt the verifiablity here? Challenging content without having a good reason would be arbitrary and then amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just false, IMHO. You ignore WP:ALLPLOT, WP:FANCRUFT, and WP:TNT. WP:AGF isn't the most relevant here, since this clearly violates these guidelines (or essays) I linked. By the way, I know I linked some essays, but your linking of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay. I'm just confused that why merge an WP:ALLPLOT version? Many thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Here I was just replying to the "any merge would violate WP:V" opinion. I had not ignored the guidelines/essays you have linked, and based on that my !vote was and is not "keep", but rather "selective merge" to My Life as a Teenage Robot, which has lots of non-plot information to counterbalance plot information. WP:TNT would mean that none of what we have here is of any use. But like StarTrekker and others, I believe a limited amount of character description on the main characters from here would benefit the main article. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios In addition to what is said above, there is also WP:OR to consider. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Proper plot summary of primary sources is not original research. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Key word here: proper. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect Even if this article meets WP:V (I'm sure there's definitely some WP:OR), the article is WP:ALLPLOT, WP:FANCRUFT, and meets WP:TNT, and seems to be a list that fails WP:NLIST, or an article that doesn't meet WP:GNG. There's simply nothing to save here, sadly. VickKiang (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. The arguments above that unsourced statements are unsourceable and hence fail V is nonsensical when everything is sourceable to the primary material: Primary meets V for uncontroversial statements like which characters exist in a setting. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to My Life as a Teenage Robot - Mainly, just the "Main" character section from this list. Its reasonable to expect information on the main cast to be included on an article on a notable television program, and the sources that are already present at the My Life as a Teenage Robot article already verify that they are, in fact, the main characters and are voiced by the indicated VAs. I agree with many of the Delete votes that this current list is overly excessive in listing every minor character with overly detailed plot summaries, but I do think that its reasonable for the information on the main characters to be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with the main page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see proponents for all possibilities. Looks like the majority of editors would prefer Merging this article with the main article but I'm relisting just in case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 3 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle (slang)[edit]

Kyle (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is based primary on one source as a "male" alternative to the widespread Karen (slang) article. It certainly doesn't have the cultural leverage or universality of coverage. I'm struggling to see WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as it seems that when searched, sources are not unanimous on what the male version of a Karen should be called (borderline WP:HAMMER). There's also an element of inherited notability here as the term has not become widespread or received coverage in its own rights aside from as a flip/variation of the wider slang/meme/language of the "Karen". >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the nom.'s reasoning of lack of WP:SIGCOV. Page mentions Kevin which (as Kev) has more usage but no page. More importantly, I think WP:DICT - although slang, it is still essentially a dictionary definition. Wiktionary is the correct Wiki project for definitions of words. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:45, 9 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

François Zajdela[edit]

François Zajdela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not nearly notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, simply the fact that he is mentioned in some biographical dictionaries and had a student with an article on French Wikipedia doesn't make him notable. I can't find his death announced in any newspapers, which is not what you would expect for someone notable. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, France, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All I find are two F. Zajdela on scientific papers published in 1980, in GScholar, could be him? Appears as part of a team of researchers, nothing independent. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks evidence of notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:06, 4 September 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!} 06:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Animation[edit]

Oasis Animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Have some credible work but it is not passing WP:NCORP MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Canada. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Companies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable animation studio, notable through their work as there is no other way that an animation studio can be notable other than through their work. If we were to insist on WP:SIGCOV then we'd only have articles on animation studios where someone got murdered, or some other scandal happened that made them appear in the news.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:NCORP is the strictiest SNG out there: no WP:42 = no notability. A company cannot be notable based on its work, that's just, no. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Current references are not sufficient to estabilish notability (fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 4 September 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 10:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valdur (band)[edit]

Valdur (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Article has been tagged for notability since January 2010. I could not find any independent reliable sources for this band, and a previous prod was removed because someone suggested that reliability of the album reviews should be determined at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no citations provided and I am also not able to find much. Zeddedm (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Malcolmxl5: (the prodder) and @Geschichte: (the deprodder) for input GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sometimes I see a poorly sourced, poorly written article that I can clean up and improve but this one I could do nothing with because I couldn't find any, and I still can't find any, in-depth high-quality sources about the band with which to write an article. Fails WP:NMUSIC, fails WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siddham: The Asia Inscriptions Database[edit]

Siddham: The Asia Inscriptions Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This database doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Mentioned in academic papers e.g. [1], has a paper about it here:[2] (British Library publication that largely describes the database as opposed to a research paper, but it is still a publication from the British Library about it) and is discussed in published books such as [3] (Inscriptions of the Aulikaras and Their Associates - Daniel Balogh.) It is ERC funded, with British Library match funding. This is WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was intrigued to hear that you'd found a paper about it, Sirfurboy, but the link you give appears to be to the BL library catalogue entry for the database, not a paper. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I will strike through in a moment. The related URL is not in fact British Library, it is British museum and the page has gone, but referred to the database here[4]. However that was a web page and not a paper. But that is not why this is notable. It is notable because it finds its way into books and publications. E.g. [5], [6], [7], as well as the ones already mentioned. You say "This database doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." But considering the database is relatively new, and the subject is academic, it actually has good coverage in a range of secondary sources. Certainly enough to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It isn't possible to write an even borderline article about this based on independent secondary sources, and as such we shouldn't have one. I can't give much weight to the mentions above; it's a database, items in it will be cited fairly frequently. Indeed, if we can only find five instances of it being cited, that's an indicator of lack of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking myself that what Sirfurboy has found are citations rather than coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I reviewed the above sources and common databases and am not seeing coverage about the database itself, nevertheless significant coverage. I would support a redirect to a list of similar databases, since this tends to be mentioned among other inscriptions databases/software, but we have no such list right now. czar 19:03, 10 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. V. Seetharamiah[edit]

M. V. Seetharamiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. No secondary sourcing. Single obit is only ref. Couldn't located 2nd obit. No other coverage. Fr and ta wp's have exact same referencing. Fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: His WorldCat is pretty decent. WP:NAUTHOR may be able to be met with this person judging by the long career and large number of publications, so it's worth for someone to try and take a deeper dive to see if he meets any of the criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Curbon7: How are you? Editor User:Ktin is updating the article. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. My edits are done. Life well lived. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent improvemenets to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawn Hi @Liz: I think the article has completed the WP:HEYMANN standard now with many decent references. It can be closed. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 4 September 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 00:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayanda Ngila[edit]

Ayanda Ngila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Different enough that it's not a G4. May version (admin only) was actually more comprehensive, but this new stub doesn't overcome sourcing issues raised at the AfD. Star Mississippi 15:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Africa, and South Africa. Star Mississippi 15:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping prior participants: @Ari T. Benchaim, Xclusivzik, PaulPachad, Red Bird 1973, Reading Beans, and Park3r: Star Mississippi 15:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what was the issue with the previous version. I can't access it. Frombelow (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 15 independent newspaper articles on his role as a member of the movement, on his high profile arrest and on his assassination. It was all over national news. I still don't understand what the issue is with this article. Not sure what G4 or AfD mean so please explain. Frombelow (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just to underline once again, Ngila is a notable leader of this movement of 50,000+ members. His arrest was a high-profile one. His assassination was all over the national news in South Africa - both in terms of news reporting as well as many op-eds as well. It should not be deleted. If there are changes that need to be made to make, please make those suggestions. Frombelow (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frombelow G4 means that while this article was already discussed and the consensus was to delete it (i.e. Ngila is not notable as defined by Wikipedia standards), the current article is different enough that it won't be automatically deleted, nut rather listed here for discussion to see if consensus has changed. You're welcome and encouraged to continue editing the article as you have done. Other editors will join the discussion and an uninvolved editor will close the discussion when they believe there is consensus. It may be seven days, or it could be longer. Star Mississippi 01:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Frombelow (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or move to Murder of Ayanda Ngila. This organisation has enormous amounts of WP:UNDUE coverage on Wikipedia. Also, many of the sources fail to meet the criteria for WP:RS. It might be best to delete this article, and create Murder of Ayanda Ngila as a redirect to Abahlali baseMjondolo#Repression where the murder can be described in a few sentences, supported by WP:RS Park3r (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to have some bias against covering this. Just claiming the organisation has undue coverage on Wikipedia does not make it fact. In the past 3 days, the organisation has been in virtually every single newspaper in the country and on all the national TV news as well (SABC, eTV, Newzroom Africa, etc). It is also the largest social movement in the country. The sources in this article absolutely meet the WP:RS criteria. The sources are all respected mainstream media outlets. Instead of referring to web pages, please be constructive and if there is a specific source that doesn't meet the criteria please cite that specific source.

  I think that Ayanda Ngila needs its own page. He was a notable member of the largest social movement in the country. His arrest was also notable, not just his murder. So I think the page should either say as Ayanda Ngila or alternatively it could be moved to Arrest and Murder of Ayanda Ngila. Frombelow (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more feedback from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At what point can't the nomination for deletion be removed?

The page has been improved significantly and its relevance has increased due to current events including the assassination of two state witnesses of Ngila's murder. People need to have a logical fact-based argument as to why it should be deleted otherwise they should withdraw their nomination. Frombelow (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A closer will judge consensus when the time is right. The nomination will not be removed until then. Star Mississippi 21:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But when will time be right? Is there no guideline for how long it must take? Frombelow (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the general minimum of seven days, there is not because there is no deadline. Star Mississippi 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm tagging the Squatting WikiProject, who would want to be apprised of this, since the article itself was not tagged. I see WP:THREE coverage in the major South African newspapers: [8][9][10]. Sure there are a lot of unreliable sources to remove, but AFD is not cleanup. Feel free to rescope to Murder of Ayanda Ngila, but that's a talk page conversation, not a matter of notability. In the event that this incident could be sufficiently covered within Abahlali baseMjondolo#Repression (i.e., merged), that's also a matter for its talk page. czar 18:51, 10 September 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. Also deleting because of copyright violations that still exist in the article. No harm in creating a redirect after this version of the article is deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Françoise Girard (feminist)[edit]

Françoise Girard (feminist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional and dishonest BLP. Mostly copied from official biographies (eg [11](pdf) and bombarded with random sources that mention her name but do not varify the content they follow. Currently contains no independent coverage about her. Poorly sourced promotional BLPs do not belong on Wikipedia. Get rid of it and let someone honest start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep but almost appears we need to TNT it. Article about the kerfuffle she was involved with from the Guardian [12] and is the discussed in a paragraph here in the NY Times magazine section. [13]. Interviews aren't really GNG, but she's here in a French article [14] and she's quoted here but also talked about in an article on abortion in Ireland [15]. She seems to be a go-to expert in Canadian French-language media when they talk about Roe V. Wade being repealed, but not really usable for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT/WP:PROMO and insufficient support for WP:BASIC notability. The 2020 "kerfluffle" article noted above, Women's health organisation president resigns following bullying and racism investigation (Guardian) is not particularly in-depth coverage of her career but it is the most substantial coverage I have found so far. She is quoted in the 2016 NYT Magazine article noted above, quoting herself speaking to someone who denies recalling the conversation. The 2018 report on the Ireland referendum in La Presse that includes quotes from Girard does not seem to provide much secondary context beyond (google translated) "At the head of an alliance headquartered in New York and bringing together 80 organizations from 40 countries in the developing world, Françoise Girard ardently defends access to abortion and reproductive rights in major international forums, including the United Nations." The 2020 50-50 Magazine interview introduces her as (google translated) "President of the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC). Her organization is one of the six members of the Core Group, which is the supreme decision-making body of the Generation Equality Forum. It is co-chaired by representatives of UN Women, France and Mexico, as well as two representatives of civil society, including the IWHC."). After deletion, a redirect can be created to International Women's Health Coalition, where she is mentioned and information about her resignation (that is not included in this article) could be added. Beccaynr (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to International Women's Health Coalition as WP:ATD. There is a bit of coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Passing mentions aren't enough, neither are refs for the sake of WP:PROMO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Kj cheetham, as an fyi, this article was created and primarily developed by a suspected and indefinitely blocked sock of Bennet 43, so this further appears to support WP:TNT deletion before a redirect is created, e.g. "undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up", in addition to the careful review of this article by the nom as well as research during this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objections to use of WP:TNT before a redirect is created in this case, as opposed to just WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article would be eligible for CSD G5; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bennet43. Regardless, it is irrevocably promotional and would need to be started over from scratch. Jack Frost (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This thing needs to be WP:TNTed and the notability is on the borderline. If an experienced editor wants to create a new article on the subject in the draftspace and then submit it through AfC I would not be opposed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, needs to be scrapped. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:55, 8 September 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 Laddingford. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laddingford Aerodrome[edit]

Laddingford Aerodrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. Private airports don't get a presumption of notability, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Laddingford, where mention can be made, suitably referenced. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mjroots. Clicking around the Find Sources links yields no sigcov. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:38, 10 September 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!} 06:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Smith (royal servant)[edit]

George Smith (royal servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

For me, the article could be encyclopedic IF what makes it noteworthy were not subject to a legal injunction. As it stands, with the accuser dead, the accused alive and the prosecution dropped the article is not only not encyclopedic and lacking the necessary number of sources for such a story, but attempts to expand and improve it would likely be defamatory. This is why I think it might be better to delete it. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No other participants yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curtiss KDC[edit]

Curtiss KDC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clear GNG fail. Found nothing from a basic BEFORE search besides Wikipedia mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 3 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wilson (boxer)[edit]

Patrick Wilson (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete couldn't find anything to satisfy GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 22:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. No assertion of notability. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush[edit]

Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The information covered in this article is not notable, because nothing historically or culturally significant happened at the funeral itself (unlike say at Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin). The info in here can just be in the death section of George H.W. Bush. The vast majority of articles about the death and state funerals of politicians cover events which were not inherently notable, with the only notability being secondary because the subject was notable - unlike the Josef Stalin one - in which many victims of his cult of personality died in a human crush at his funeral. Additionally, most death and state funeral articles are about Western politicians. I don't think we should have and keep adding articles about the deaths + state funerals of Western politicians when nothing significant happened because of these events, considering we usually don't do that for non-Western politicians. A lot of other non-Western politicians also leave a notable metaphysical impact on the world through the policies they implement, and since their time in office usually defines why they're notable - not the aftermath of their death - the same principle should apply to Western politicians. Important info about his death and funeral is already covered in George H. W. Bush#Death and funeral, so including it here again is repetitive, and the rest is just excess which isn’t notable. So it should just be deleted, there's nothing of substance here which isn’t in the original article, therefore merging isn’t necessary Stephanie921 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that there's nothing of substance here which isn’t in the original article is utter nonsense. Even in the lead I found two points of substance:

1. President Donald Trump declared a national day of mourning and ordered all flags "throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions" lowered to half staff for 30 days after his death
2. About a dozen world leaders attended the event

I started on the next para, but there was so much detail on his final days that isn't in the main article that it was too much work to copy it all.

It seems that the nominator did not even read the article before making this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 4 September 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 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. State funerals are rare events, usually attended by world leaders and that receive significant media coverage. I'd be happy to see such articles about state funerals for non-Western former heads of state that receive similar coverage. That argument seems to be other stuff doesn't exist. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that the subject is not by itself notable. The notability all comes from Bush himself, not the acc death and funeral. The article about Bush already covers it concisely as it pertains to him, and the media coverage all stem from his legacy @User:331dot Stephanie921 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed for four years without a problem. It covers much more detailed information than the one paragraph in the article about Bush himself. Adding this all to that article would make it too long. "The media coverage all stem from his legacy", yes, that happens with heads of state. If he were a nobody, his funeral would likely not warrant an article. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Highly notable event, with extensive WP:SIGCOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. State funerals of world leaders are generally notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mountains of coverage here, not just from the U.S. either. Too much to cram into the main article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, suggest SNOW close – With extensive international coverage, easily passes WP:NEVENT. Ovinus (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Related discussion: WP:Articles for deletion/Death of Mikhail Gorbachev. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Andre🚐 18:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This AfD nomination was likely not started because of the merits of Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush itself, but rather because the page was mentioned by !voters at the deletion nomination of Death and funeral of Mikhail Gorbachev as an example of precedent for such articles existing on the encyclopedia, while the nom's stated opinion is that "Death and funeral of <x>" articles are inherently non notable. Notability is determined by sources, and this article's sourcing demonstrates that this event was extensively covered. The topic is also significant enough that it passed an ITN/C discussion and was featured on the front page of the encyclopedia for a time. There's more than enough information here to justify a page separate from the biographical article George H. W. Bush. In my opinion, it's not a great practice to start new AfD discussions just to make a point at another AfD discussion. Maybe if the Gorbachev one closed with a consensus to delete (which looks very unlikely) then there'd be a better case for nominating other ones, but right now this feels a bit POINTy.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh, this isn't super disruptive and it's a reasonable question, although it might have been be better discussed at some place like Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I'd suggest a snow close, though. Ovinus (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article includes details that would not be included in the main article due to it being too long, so I see no reason for the page to be deleted. Sahaib (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would have WP:SNOW closed this myself, but to some extent am involved given my contribution at WP:Articles for deletion/Death of Mikhail Gorbachev. FWIW, this article clearly passes the GNG and is an utterly appropriate fork. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obviously, if only because this is a completely valid content fork so as to avoid overwhelming the parent article with undue coverage of his death and funeral. Silly nom imo. nableezy - 00:10, 5 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Shane[edit]

Nicky Shane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional piece. Having registered a Guinness World Record is not a claim to notability, and there is no trace of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Looks like this has flown under the radar for many years. bonadea contributions talk 21:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and California. bonadea contributions talk 21:27, 3 September 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!} 23:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vadda Grewal[edit]

Vadda Grewal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable singer/actor. At best they're notable for being busted for opium; any source that isn't about that is a name-drop in a cast list (strings: "vada grewal", "vadda grewal"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above, appears to have had a non-notable career, and getting arrested with drugs isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 4 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meisuna Alhassan[edit]

Meisuna Alhassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable semi-pro footballer that would have failed WP:NFOOTBALL if still relevant. None of the sources cited demonstrate significant coverage so I'm not seeing how WP:GNG is met. No hits in Google News and no relevant hits in ProQuest. The coverage in DDG is mostly Wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources. Digging deeper, you can find a trivial mention in a few places like Modern Ghana but this is far from an acceptable level of depth for an article. Doesn't even pass the bare minimum requirement at WP:SPORTBASIC bullet point 5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete falls well below GNG. I can't find anything significant. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion indicates a lack of secondary sources that provide significant, independent coverage of the institution itself. Primary sources and tangential material about accomplishments of people associated with it, etc., do not provide the type of coverage needed. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal[edit]

Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG, sources are either primary or bare mentions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, India, and Gujarat. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi i checked and added Constituent Colleges. seems genuine to me. AniEssential (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AniEssential thank you Saggi Josh (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AniEssential, i'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 Keep Sarva Vidyalaya Kelavani Mandal is philanthropic educational trust with over 100 years legacy.^[1] Thank you AniEssential (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 Hello, you may check the link of scholar.google.com ^[2] Saggi Josh (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a search link with a lot of results. I checked a few and they too seem to be bare mentions. The first result there might be promising. Please add it to the article as a ref with the numbers of relevant pages, and a direct url, so that readers don't have to go looking through 10 pdfs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 Hello, I have added list of schools and colleges and 2 colleges LDRP and SVIM have Wikipedia pages as well. As per your guidance I have added couple of books, journal as well. please have a look and guide. thank you Saggi Josh (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saggi Josh, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, after you are done with improving the article, add your vote (with reasoning) to this discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added various Journals, Book, Scholar articles and added constituent colleges and school. Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal is the parent trust under which Kadi Sarva Vishwavidyalaya university is registered, various Schools are also under Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal umbrella. LDRP Institute of Technology and Research and SVIM colleges have their Wikipedia pages and are under Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal education parent trust. Kindly check that as well. Having said these I shall continue to improve article. Kindly consider to keep article. Saggi Josh (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as per WP:NORG I found various articles under Sarva Vidyalaya Kelavani Mandal ^[3] AniEssential (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — AniEssential (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  edit: On further review, the added coverage is still not enough, so, i still stand by my original delete vote. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relising, please review after addition of new sources and content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep @Liz Greetings! I have added new link of the ISBN:9789381110669 ^[4] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please do not vote 2 times. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the subject of the article seems to be the publisher of this book. Therefore, not an independent source. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Added notable work done by Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelvani Mandal of proving 2000 beds during Covid-19 lockdown to the Government of Gujarat. link ^[1] Saggi Josh (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final attempt to gain more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 I have added one more news article about Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal CSR activity in association with Life Chiropractic College West to benefit 4000 patients in June 2022 and upcoming announcement to treat more patients in coming month. ^[2] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 added 1 more JSTOR ^[3] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 I have added Journal ^[4] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 added one more journal ^[5] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 Kindly check the Google scholar link where all the scholars and Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal is listed^[6] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 A survey on IoT privacy issues and mitigation techniques ^[7] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 Hello i have /* In the news */ added student of Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal Pranav Desai para Olympian Gold Medalist ^[8] Saggi Josh (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saggi Josh I wouldn't recommend pinging the relisting admin for every ref that you add to the article. I've looked at some of your new refs: they still seem not have in-depth coverage. e.g. "Student X, of a college, run by the mandal, wins a medal" does not confer notability on the Trust itself. A few more were of the same kind. Please don't WP:REFBOMB. Instead, you should present the best WP:THREE refs that show notability for the mandal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@MPGuy2824.. Greetings. My apologies and thank you for guidance. As per my understanding, I have placed notable achievement as Mandal takes pride in the student who could fetch Gold medal in para Olympics and Student receive all the facilities needed to reach there, was provided by Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal. Moreover, as per your earlier suggestions I have added google scholar link for everyone's ready reference for the notability. ^[9] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NORG. Reliable sources with significant coverage which are also independent of the subject is simply absent, just a promotional article and citation bombing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources provided are trivial mentions or not independent. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:59, 10 September 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 but with less than usual prejudice against re-nomination, should new arguments be brought forward. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Borough of Southend on Sea[edit]

County Borough of Southend on Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The current page was amended to the City of Southend on Sea and there was a prod raised as the page was the same as main Southend Article. The City of Southend does not exist as a governmental district that's the Southend-on-Sea City Council, while the original page was the former local government body that stopped being an entity in 1974. The County Borough had full powers, much like the current Unitary Council has, but lost these when it became Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, even though the boundaries did not change. As such I reverted back to a basic version of original. However should this page exist, or should it be a redirect to the existing Southend-on-Sea City Council page, with the County Borough history added, as currently its a stub. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move back to City of Southend-on-Sea. This is a unitary district with city status while Southend-on-SeaSouthend-on-Sea City Council is a unitary council that runs it. This was discussed at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 26#Reconstituted districts and Talk:Southend-on-Sea#County Borough of Southend-on-Sea where there were no objections raised. Southend-on-Sea City Council should probably be merged here instead just like how Chelmsford City Council (and Chelmsford Borough Council) redirect to City of Chelmsford. We have separate articles for County Borough of Carlisle and City of Carlisle because in 1974 (district 1) the county borough was abolished and merged with Border Rural District. If you look at Southend-on-Sea in the same order you can see that district 14 only consisted or Southend-on-Sea county borough. This is similar to Category:Districts abolished by the London Government Act 1963 where the likes of Metropolitan Borough of Islington and London Borough of Islington exist separately due to Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury being merged but with Municipal Borough of Harrow it just redirects to London Borough of Harrow because its boundaries didn't change in 1965. The same logic applies here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unitary status is for the council. The district comes under the council control. If you Google search "City of Southend on Sea district atea" the only page comes up is the Wikipedia page for Southend on Sea! This is not sn official designation. Metropolitan and non metropolitan districts can receive Borough status under the 1972 act, which is why Southend Borough Council existed from 1974, when the County Borough was disestablished. The same as Castle Point, which was a district until it received Borough status in 1992. The Chelmsford argument is also void, as in government the Chelmsford area is known as Chelmsford City Council. The argument about the London Borough of Islington is also poor because it is the official designated name for the area run by the council of that name.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in addition to quote from the non metropolitan district page "Non-metropolitan districts are subdivisions of English non-metropolitan counties which have a two-tier structure of local government.[1] Most non-metropolitan counties have a county council and several districts, each with a borough or district council." The district is run by a council, which is what the page should be called. Based in your argument Essex County Council should by The County of Essex?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The council is a unitary authority and the district it runs is thus a unitary authority area which is a type of non-metropolitan district. "City of Southend-on-Sea" is the way to title the district (as it holds city status) similar to City of Carlisle and City of Peterborough. Southend Borough Council would have existed prior to 1974 running the county borough and municipal borough. Districts can have borough, city and unitary status for example Castle Point having borough status since 1992 as you pointed out but its still a district! Just like Chelmsford being given city status in 2012 didn't stop it from being a borough or district. The area Chelmsford City Council runs is the district (with city status) of Chelmsford the district its self isn't "Chelmsford City Council".
    • Non-metropolitan districts can have unitary status which means they are also non-metropolitan counties but can still be in a ceremonial county. Essex County Council covers the non-metropolitan county of Essex (the ceremonial county minus Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock) just like Southend-on-Sea City Council runs the unitary district of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Council runs the unitary district of Thurrock. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the district is an area of geographical government, so the council is the official name for the district. This document from the gov.uk describes the non metropolitan, metropolitan, unitary districts by council name https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1026384/List_of_councils_in_England_2021.pdf . Any district article should be the official name as per the UK government and not a made up title.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a list of councils not districts in the same way Suffolk County Council isn't the official name of Suffolk![16] Castle Point Borough Council isn't the official name of Castle Point[17] and Chelmsford City Council isn't the official name of Chelmsford[18]. The geographical area is run by the district but it isn't the district. For many districts we redirect the council to the district but for counties we have separate articles for the council and the geographical area. Southend-on-Sea (the district) has 2 components, "Southend-on-Sea" unparished area and Leigh-on-Sea civil parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That is the official name of districts. Search gov.uk for non metropolitan districts and that's is what you get. There is no government list other than this. Districts only exist as areas of government, they don't exist as anything else, so it should be the locsl government body. Leigh on Sea has a town council, but they are below Southend City Council, managing a small amount of local government business and Fall within the boundaries of the City Council.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page has been expanded. Also the discussion here is a content dispute, not something for which the deletion process should be used. Peter James (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you had looked at the actual history of what has happened you would see that the discussion into moving the page occurred on the Southend on Sea settlement Talk:Southend-on-Sea. Slater Steven was the oerson who objected and prod the article after the change from County Borough to City title. The article has been improved by MRSD since I raised the AFD, and I have since asked the question on the geographic notability page and invited oroject members to respond[[19]], only for Crouch, Swale to be the only user to have answered so far. Based upon his own argument, the actual page that should be changed is the Southend-on-Sea City Council page to City of Southend (district), and this page either left or redirected and added to the new district page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment I have now found an official list of local district boundaries via the Office of National Statistics https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/documents/ons::local-authority-districts-counties-and-unitary-authorities-april-2021-map-in-united-kingdom-/about. This is the latest version dated 2021. Although Southend received City status this year, Chelmsford that gained City status on 2012 is not named City of Chelmsford (as per Wikipedia article in the district) but just Chelmsford, the name it was given in the 1972 Local Government reforms.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That list is a list of district councils not districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The map does not say councils, it says metropolitan and non metropolitan districts. In addition, the Council tax: stock of properties, 2018 on gov.uk which states "Table CTSOP1.0: Number of properties by Council Tax band and region, county and local authority district" [20] does not state City of Chelmsford, but Chelmsford snd describes Southend-on-Sea as Southend-on-Sea UA. Also if you go to the Ministry of Housing,

Communities & Local Government Open data portal,[21] search non metropolitan districts and Chelmsford, the district is called Chelmsford, not City of Chelmsford or Chelmsford City Council. Southend no longer comes under the non metropolitan districts list but under the unitary authority list. So therefore we have contradicting information from government bodies. Therefore whom is correct?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Further to the above, due to conflicting government naming conventions I have raised an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to get concensus.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't know if some of the discussion here comes across as just absurd, or just very British.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For the benefit of anyone who might look at closing this discussion but isn't British -- the matter is not absurd but needs context. Southend is a former town that recently became a city, promoted in large part to honour David Amess, Southend's longstanding Member of Parliament who was murdered in his constituency office by a constituent (an event that created quite a media circus here). The article purports to be about part of Southend's recent history. It's likely well documented in local government records and there is little doubt that sources exist. At issue is whether this content is a useful step towards a developed article on Southend's history or whether it should be deleted/draftified to make way for other content. I can see both sides of that, so I won't !vote, but I wouldn't want a foreign closer to come along and reject the discussion as unintelligible.—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The district gained city status but the settlement still exists. The current district has the same boundaries as the county borough thus this should describe the current unitary district with city status as well as the county borough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep, per satisfactory reasoning by Crouch, Swale. BD2412 T 05:01, 11 September 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 Club Penguin (franchise)#Factory TV specials under WP:AVALANCHE. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We Wish You a Merry Walrus[edit]

We Wish You a Merry Walrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also nominating:

Club Penguin: Monster Beach Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Both of the articles' prose are almost just a primary WP:PLOTONLY description with no real world context besides a stub of a development section. I couldn't seem to find any reliable sources talking about these TV specials (Also see WP:FICT). Sparkl^talk 18:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Visual arts, Comics and animation, and Disney. Sparkl^talk 18:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Is there a good set article on Disney Christmas specials? If not, this should probably be merged to Club Penguin (franchise)#Factory TV specials which lists it but clearly has room for more. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Club Penguin (franchise)#Factory TV specials per what Jclemens says. Liliana ^(UwU) 21:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge One secondary source is not enough o fullfill WP:GNG, but preserving a reasonable amount of information on this is preferable to deletion in the spirit of WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Only one source, but other than that, a Google search doesn't show anything that can substantiate the content such that it'll satisfy WP:PLOT. That it is a work a fiction itself does not make it notable.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as this does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Some WP:PLOT can be WP:PRESERVEd if it is merged to an article with more substantial coverage and context. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 6 September 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. czar 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks[edit]

List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very long list of links (WP:NOT), it seems to aim to have each and every program ever broadcast in the Azteca networks. Mostly unsourced. Possible promotion as it often includes upcoming programming. MexTDT (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MexTDT (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists (including comprehensive lists) are acceptable on Wikipedia. Sourcing is an issue to be fixed on the article, not on AfD. Describing upcoming programming in itself is not promotion. The only reason to delete it would be if TV Azteca itself were not notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Azteca is notable, its original programming is also notable. But, is it acceptable to have each and every external acquired program ever broadcast by the networks? The PS2 and PS3 are also notable, but the compatibility lists were also deleted (along with other lists) by the same reasons I’m nominating this one for. The Spanish Wikipedia version only has its original programming as agreed by the community there, also to avoid becoming a huge list with original research, maybe it’s time for enwiki to do the same.--MexTDT (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a scope issue then, which also isn't going to be solved on AfD. Following the Spanish Wikipedia's precedent is probably the best move. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - happening to list future programming is not a promotion violation. If you want to open a discussion about having it be a list of original programming only rather than re-broadcasts, then you can absolutely open that issue on the talk page, but this is not a matter for AfD. Broadly speaking, the overall topic is an appropriate list for Wikipedia. matt91486 (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the nominator has stated that the networks original programming is notable but objects to acquired programming so this is a content issue and not suitable for AfD imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 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. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of PC games with force feedback support[edit]

List of PC games with force feedback support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Also unsourced and apparently based on an unreliable source (MobyGames). IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:OLIST. Force feedback is such a common feature that it's pointless to have a list on it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is more a function if the controller than the game, with most APIs making it easy to include. not a defining feature for a list.Masem (t) 16:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this has been a thing since the PS2 came out, it's not really needing a list. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining feature of a video game. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most console/pc games post 2000 have this feature TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Even a specialized Wiki like PCGamingWiki does not have stuff/lists like this. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:03, 10 September 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 Boxing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Light flyweight. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramazan Ballioğlu[edit]

Ramazan Ballioğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He competed at the 2000 Olympics but did not win a medal and I don't think he passes WP:NBOXING. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Turkey. Suonii180 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Boxing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Light flyweight. Can't find any coverage, but the redirect seems the best option. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Lethweimaster (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Boxing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Light flyweight with ((R from person)). My cursory search found nothing to suggest meeting WP:GNG, and was a minor boxer in the 2000 Olympics that likely fails WP:NBOX. The mention at that article is very minor, but it's something @CLYDEFRANKLIN 22:36, 6 September 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. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Fahie[edit]

Joel Fahie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article are all trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no more than database entries and a few passing media mentions on this footballer, nothing significant enough to confer notability. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability. Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG --Angelo (talk) 23:35, 8 September 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. There is unanimous consensus here among participants other than nominator that the subject meets GNG and as such is notable. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariatu Candé[edit]

Mariatu Candé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found [22], [23], [24], [25], and [26], among many many other sources. Clearly significant figure in Guinea-Bissau women's football, one of the sources above even dubbed her the "Frank Lampard of Guinea-Bissau" and another dubbed her "undoubtedly an example to follow (for Bissau-Guineans)", probably best ever player, with by far most coverage and one of few to ever play abroad. Also, having started her career in early to mid 2000s, there is most likely offline coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fourth and fifth posts are from Facebook/Youtube (interview) and can be ruled out as unreliable. The first source appears to be a transcript? of the fifth Youtube link. Interviews are not independent of the subject. The second source relies on quotes from the subject, which is not independent of the subject. The third source barely passes the threshold here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I compared the first source text to the fifth source transcript and found that the first source is not a transcript of the fifth source. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the first 3 sources that Das has found seem good enough to meet GNG. There is enough content aside from just quotes to meet what I would call 'significant'. It's certainly more than trivial coverage and the sources seem to be reliable and independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG based on references whih have been found. Bruxton (talk) 18:50, 8 September 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. czar 18:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Salvadore[edit]

Gabriella Salvadore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, and South America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - squad list mentions do not confer notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 10 September 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. czar 18:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Bhattacharyya[edit]

Ankita Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Known only for one or two events. No indication of importance or notability. Was previously deleted before but was restored due to 'soft delete' policy. Courtesy ping: Ravensfire, Itcouldbepossible, Bonadea, Ahp101. DoraShin15, 15:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, and India. DoraShin15, 15:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same as last time, lack of sources/non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This person is a champion of a biggest reality show of bangla and Its equal to an award. Also I think enough source are available. I have added some sources but it has been removed by an user. All source are from reputed news portal. And I don't know whats the problem of this nominator? First nomination failed, 2 times speed delation failed and now its 2nd nomination! I hope admin will take decision wisely. Montubhai (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She won Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Bangla, which could be seen as meeting criterion #9 of WP:NMUSIC. But NMUSIC says that a musician who meets one or more of the criteria may be notable, not that they are automatically notable, and this does look more like a case of one event only. Fact is that all the sources are about her winning the competition, and there's almost no secondary sourcing (interviews are primary sources, and we'd need secondary sources to show notability). The many sources that were removed as WP:CITEKILL are also about that event, and most of them were press releases (not independent). What has happened since 2019 – are there no more recent sources? --bonadea contributions talk 17:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E and looks like more of promotion only. 150.107.146.154 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 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) 11:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Kapoor[edit]

Khushi Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. ManaliJain (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:TOOSOON. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Upcoming" actress with no notable roles, very non-notable, almost a textbook case. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly doesn't pass NACTOR and notability is not inherited. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sridevi: Fails WP:NACTOR. And notability is not inherited. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:07, 4 September 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. Nobody actually expresses a "keep" opinion here, so... Sandstein 19:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furkan Özsan[edit]

Furkan Özsan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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