< December 20	December 22 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Black (music manager)[edit]

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

I find this more promotional than notable and given the fact that the creator of the page's contributions have been exclusively related to articles specifically related to this person for 14 years, I'm slightly inclined to believe that this article's only purpose is to be promotional; sources used in the article are poor and I can only find mentions of him not already in the article that are very brief. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Business. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, fails NBASIC, particularly the intellectual independence requirement. Mach61 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Seems that the creator of the page has a close connection to John Black which appears to be only promotional and probably getting paid to do so. Punk Rock London (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. Mr. Black has been mentioned in some reliable sources, but these are typically in the form of brief statements in articles that are actually about his companies, without any background info to indicate that his career and biography are of interest. Meanwhile, the article is clearly an attempted promotion written by himself or an employee, not even trying to appear neutral. No, he did not pioneer the design of musician websites in the 1990s, and his recent app is not the first that ever offered a rewarding listening experience. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Per nom and everyone else. (WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY). JSFarman (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: as violating WP:NOTRESUME, given absence of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete very much WP:ISNOT. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The People's Republic of Amnesia[edit]

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

Most of the article is based on primary sources and is just a synopsis. There appears to be only 1 decent review from NY times. But doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep BEFORE fail. WaPo mentions it, this year, demonstrating it has enduring coverage. Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban... we'd better have a really airtight case for deleting, and this ain't it. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban." is not a criteria for WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's a criteria for a project built on NOTCENSORED, which I happen to believe applies to this case based on the WaPo article I cited. Consider beefing up your BEFORE, withdrawing the nomination, or accept the residual risk of appearing to have nomination priorities congruent with a totalitarian regime. That may be totally OK with you, but I would consider having myself apparently so aligned a pretty negative thing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggest you tone down your aggressive tone. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Numerous reviews, including in Krikus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also added a link to the Times review already in the article, which is accessible through TWL. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks LibStar (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: several reviews in serious RS. Have done some tidying up - removed the umpteen repeated links to the author, removed a duplicated ref, and fixed the curly quotes. PamD 09:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as the Reception section shows notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep notable, while the article might not have shown notability, remember to check WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: per coverage in reviews. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sustained coverage found by Left guide during the discussion has led to a rough consensus, with multiple editors flipping to !vote keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 23:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Karachi mall fire[edit]

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

Non-notable electrical fire, does not meet WP:EVENT. Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan. Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : While it may not be a notable event anymore, the article can still be improved upon. Rager7 (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep So long as we continue to apply WP:NOTNEWS as narrowly as we do…the article seems to pass GNG and as it was in a non-Western (but somewhat Anglophone) country I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt notability-wise.

If it had happened in Miami, would it be up for deletion? I don’t know. But looking at it cursorily, a bit of expansion would help. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I don't see this as having the WP:LASTING impact required by WP:EVENTCRIT. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: changed from Delete based on recent coverage found by Left guide, which invalidates my earlier WP:LASTING argument. The administrative attention this is now getting also suggests it will result in regulatory amendments to electrical or building codes. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Tragic occurrance, but fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Tails Wx 02:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Keep per the references found below by Left guide, coverage is persistent. ~ Tails Wx 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete to the WP:LASTING notes above, I'd add WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE, all of which are lacking. For RadioactiveBoulevardier's objections above, I'd say that the tide of ill-advised AfD conclusions that go against policy are lamentable, but should not be used as a reason to keep something that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. If it happened in Miami and had the same sourcing, I'd !vote the exactly same way (and have on the plethora of news events like yet another mass shooting that similarly lacks DEPTH and EFFECT). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep I feel like if an event happened in the US of this scale, it would be SNOW kept at AFD. We have to be wary of systematic bias on Wikipedia. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may very well be right. There is, indeed, a systematic bias at play, but it is external to Wikipedia. Secondary sources - news, in this case - is biased in favour of covering Western world events. And since we here on Wikipedia are bound by the requirement to base our content on secondary sources, we end up with more coverage for events in the Western world whether we choose to or not. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of compiling an encyclopedia that isn't based on original research. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, just within the past few days, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of the fire has emerged regarding three people arrested for sabotaging evidence, wiring and electrical safety, fire safety, and the police investigation. Left guide (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is just about a consensus for delete here, although Left guide's comment needs to be responded to/refuted for that consensus to be strong enough to close as delete. Alternatively additional support for their view may lead to a no consensus closure. Final relist to hopefully reach a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- The new sourcing found by Left guide does include one excellent WP:SECONDARY reference, as the Express-Tribune article has some WP:DEPTH and analytical, non-primary content. The remaining sources, including the original cites, are still WP:PRIMARYNEWS. They are not continued WP:SIGCOV or WP:PERSISTENCE, just routine news announcements that report on a new development. That one secondary source is strong, however, but it's a very tenuous peg on which to hang this article, especially without any WP:GEOSCOPE. Without more such sourcing – or, even better, if they enact one or more of the recommendations specified in the Express-Tribune piece to satisfy WP:LASTING – I maintain that the article still does not pass WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Sometime within the past 24 hours, CCTV footage of the fire surfaced, and this has been widely reported by Urdu sources. Left guide (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep With almost a dozen deaths and continued coverage, it would be best to revisit this article after a long time. CharlesWain (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and the deletion rationale is weak. If you propose a Merge or Redirect in the future, please supply a link to the target article you are considering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tropical Storm Sonca (2017)[edit]

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

Sonca is very empty. It can easily be merged with the season article. Incognito Fedora (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Asia. Incognito Fedora (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong oppose/keep - Did you even see the impact that the storm caused? Does that not warrant an article?? The only reason you would be nominating it is because of its meteorological history and top section, and even so, you can fix it yourself. luis 💬 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, this is a deletion discussion. Articles of individual tropical cyclones should not be deleted and should instead be redirected if not notable. Merge discussions of those articles take place on either the parent talk page (being the season which the storm formed during) or the talk page of the article itself. luis 💬 14:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: news coverage establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The article itself might be short but this clearly passes WP:GNG. The storm received wide coverage and the fairly high death toll makes it notable. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Garmin BaseCamp[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Google search for Garmin BaseCamp finds just 11 references, the most in-depth any of them goes that isn't a download page or a WP:SPS is about four sentences on the topic. Google Books search finds several German guidebooks for Garmin GPSes that have a couple paragraphs of the software. Nothing in a Google News search. Newspapers.com had a handful of passing mentions (mostly the same coverage of a GPS being run in multiple Canadian papers.) The only articlespace page linking here is Base camp (disambiguation). Nat Gertler (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- "Withdrawn by nominator" -- I'm withdrawing the article not for any of the reasons gone into below by the page creator (there are absolutely good reasons not to have articles on non-notable, still-alive software, as it will either need frequent updating or be out of date, and because it may often come up as the first result on a Google search while not offering the reader a better experience than the actual download page which may appear lower), but simply because I somehow biffed the WP:BEFORE. I'm not sure what I was doing that got 11 ghits, but I am now getting many more. This doesn't automatically mean that I think it is sufficiently notable -- the first screen of results were not things that contribute to notability -- but I haven't the energy at the moment to pick out the wheat from the chaff. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Where exactly is the harm in leaving this article be? It is neither nonsense, libellous, untrue nor written like an advertisement, and Wikipedia, being digital, is not bound by limits on physical size or weight; your book shelves are not going to collapse by leaving the article here, nor are the Wikipedia servers going to struggle with the sheer size of the article. "What is this BaseCamp thing?" is a valid thing for a user to wonder. Wikipedia can answer that question in a neutral and ad-free way, that is of course if you don't keep deleting things like this. Instead of coming up with ever more stringent a-priori requirements on "notability", ask yourself "could this information one day be of use to someone?".
On the question of "notability", the reason this policy was originally conceived is of course to keep contributors from creating pages on themselves, their dog and their impromptu band formed with two flatmates, or to keep Wikipedia from becoming free advertising space for commercial entities (and we have other policies to deal with that), but nowadays it seems to be used as an excuse for people who are looking to spend their free time looking for articles to delete from Wikipedia. I would urge you to look at other article quality measures as well, rather than using "notability" as the magic wand here.
I find myself wondering why I spend time on creating articles and other contributions to Wikipedia, if that means a lifetime of defending your content against the "deletionists". I think this eagerness to delete may ultimately harm the Wikipedia ecosystem more than it benefits it. Back when I was a student, do you know how discussions on contributing to Wikipedia went? A bit like this: "Have you ever contributed something to Wikipedia that wasn't removed immediately? No? Why bother then?". So really, this kind of behaviour can keep Wikipedia from attracting new contributors, and we should keep it from becoming some sort of dwindling in-crowd of self-proclaimed guardians of what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia, which apparently means that things can only be included if they're discussed in 20.000 other places as well. So what if it's a bit older or not used very much? It exists, the information is true and verifiable. If there are only a few paragraphs of factual information to give, why should that mean it's not a story worth telling?
So, before you decide to delete, ask yourself a few questions. Are you acting in the best interest of Wikipedia or are you only trying to win an argument? Are you acting in the best interest of Wikipedia or are you only trying to enforce a bureaucratic policy (see Vogons)? Create, don't destroy, it's a more useful way to spend your time. --IByte (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Ljubljana[edit]

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

This article is based on primary sources and merely confirms the embassy exists and who the ambassadors were/are. Lacks third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Slovenia, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Another embassy article that isn't worth having. The article mostly mentions the relation history between the two nations and their respective ambassadors and almost little to no information is written about the embassy. If a Slovenia-Ukraine relations article was created, most of the content here could be merged over there. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTACATALOGUE. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arif Mehmood Alam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:1E.

Sources are either trivial coverage or non-WP:RS

1) Wikipedia mirror
2) Mentions event but not article subject
3) Forum post
4) Does not mention article subject
5) Trivial mention. WP:NOTNEWS coverage of his death. Information about article subject limited to the two sentences "Colonel Arif hailed from Punjab and was serving in the Frontier Works Organisation".
6) Literally same link as 5
7) Two sentence trivial coverage, and not WP:INDEPENDENT as a military PR wing
8) Again, coverage of the event, not the article subject. "FWO also lost one of his officers, Col. Arif Mehmood, during the excavation process." A412 (Talk • C) 06:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. A412 (Talk • C) 06:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Non-notable armed forces member. CharlesWain (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppet !votes removed The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep He was the commander of Attabad Lake Project officially hired by FWO Pakistan Army. He received Tamgha-e-Basalat and Tamgha-e-Imtiaz and Yaadgari Shield by Chief of the Army Staff (Pakistan) which you can check on ISPR official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeti7 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really do you think that he is non notable army person??

Cadet college Jhelum mentioned him in honourable mentions as Army Officer in Pakistan Army.

In 2010 he was appointed as Commanding Officer of a well-known project by Pakistan army. [1][2]

In 2011 Express News (TV channel) runs a program about her Attabad lake project In which colonel Arif gave briefing on project.

In 2011 he gave his life during saving his soldiers. [3]

On his death ISPR give a honourable press release about Arif Mehmood his sacrifice for her soldiers as well as his works and services.[4]

After his death Express News (TV channel) again runs a program on Arif Mehmood to honour him. He shows iff camera scenes and his story.

In 2012 he was awarded by Tamgha-e-Imtiaz and Tamgha-i-Basalat. [5]

In 2012, Pakistan Defence Tribute to Commanding Officer [6]

After some years he was awarded by yaadgari shield from Chief of the Army Staff (Pakistan).

In 2019 92 News runs a short program "Hamary Heros" an autobiography of him on their channel [7]

All tunnels around Attabad Lake were named after Col Arif Mehmood Tunnels to honour him.

[8]

Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad record a short program to honour him with his family to talk about him and her services.

In 2020, PAMIR TIMES, honour him by recalling his memories as Commanding Officer. [9]

In 2021 his brother received his Framed picture as honour from Inter-Services Public Relations from Asif Ghafoor. Teeti7 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Notable person. His previous page was a reviewed reviewed article through AFC but later it was deleted by an Administrator due to sockpuppet case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.62.18.194 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable: passes General notability criteria. According to sources: Firstly he was not only a Colonel, he was a Commander of the Attabad Lake Project. And on his death, news channels, news papers and ISPR break the news that Commander of Attabad project gave his life. And third, he was awarded by Tamgha-e-Basalat , Tamgha-e-Imtiaz by President and Yaadgari shield by Army Chief of Staff as above mentioned by Teeti7 (talk). Kkb091 (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as Kkb091 mentioned reliable resources [10] [11]. 223.123.86.5 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After review, nearly all the comments were from sockpuppets of a banned user. I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting this AFD page, and relisting it to generate consensus from real editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete not notable, based on the above analysis. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

İsmail Erkan Çelik[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Had previous review and tagging with no disposition. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Author has a lifetime of 10 edits, their edit #1 was a full creation of this article. Two of the references (which I removed) just said "Google Scholar" (nothing else). Most of material is uncited because there is practically nothing in the references. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Turkey. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, looks like WP:RESUME. Aintabli (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as spam. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aimee Semple McPherson. No prejudice against merging into the main article as appropriate, although there are concerns some of the material may be non-neutral and/or unencyclopedic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faith healing ministry of Aimee Semple McPherson[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork, largely duplicating the already-existing Aimee Semple McPherson without really offering a clear reason why her work would be a standalone topic separately from her life. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to main per nom. There is no indication this is a notable subject apart from the main article. The tone and content is unencyclopedic. If someone wants to volunteer to filter out the problems and Merge properly sourced material that meets NPOV, no objection. // Timothy :: talk 21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Aimee Semple McPherson per nom. This article was created in 2015 by the RagesossBot of User:MaggieHood19 and her students, as a Wikistudent project - more than a decade after the original article already existed. There really is no reason to keep this. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep if redirect then the material would be migrated back into the main article lengthening it again (which is why it was removed to its own article in May 2015)

The faith healing section was originally part of the main article but was lengthy and detailed enough for its own article as it was adding substantially to the main article which was to be condensed. This occurred in May 9 2015 by MaggieHood19

Sources are already well referenced, if there is an issue with "encyclopedic" tone, some specifics in this area to the problem sentences etc would be useful as objections currently too vague to be actionable by myself at least

In any instance, I plan to work on the article as needed, for example a neglected area is the opposition against McPherson in this area from theological view of Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased, at the end of the end of the apostolic age.

Granted more in this area could be done to explore the Cessationism aspect in the article and likely the only significant viewpoint missing since already there is the American Medical Association in San Francisco, Pastor Charles S. Price , (skeptic minister who came to believe after he saw) atheist, Charles Chaplin (skilled hypnotism and the power she commanded over the crowds); P.H. Welshimer of First Christian Church (hypnotism and "mesmeric power") and others in the Views on McPherson’s work section and elsewhere. SteamWiki (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Aimee Semple McPherson: As per the nomination. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep but revise. If incorporated back into Aimee Semple McPherson there are a few references here that are different and should be kept. The main article already has 204 references (although possibly some of those can be cut down IMO). Some of this material could be moved to Faith healing which currently only says "During the 1920s and 1930s, Aimee Semple McPherson was a controversial faith healer of growing popularity during the Great Depression." although that article also isn't designed to go into details about individual faith healers. If this article is kept it needs revision.johnmark†:Talk(talk to me) 00:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Keep~~ (duplicate !vote struck Daniel (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)) I intend on working on the article, especially past the "holidays;" December a good month for editors to work on articles demanding attention buried as they can be with all the responsibilities of friends and family around this time of year LoL.Reply[reply]

As before the "Cessationism" view needs to be included, this I already have text and a source from a famous minister of the time, it has to be properly edited before it can be added to the article.

Also, among other things, more details on McPherson's first faith healing by which she learned of it she herself; (broken ankle) healed by William Durham, who brought the Azusa revival to Chicago and its link to Pentecostalism and its traditions of divine healing.

The healing, stated, by McPherson, in a testimony, was done before 12 witnesses (one a skeptic who was astonished then joined the others in praise after he saw the cast removed from the healed foot) divided the congregation. Doubters did not think the foot had ever been broken, or did not believe it had been healed (Epstein p 59).

William Durham, attended the Azusa Street revival, initiated with African American preacher William J. Seymour who had established the Azusa Street Mission in 1906. was known also for its numerous statements by people of either faith healings they saw or received.

William Durham, himself was convinced; after severe attack of rheumatic fever in 1891, he survived by praying, confirming his belief in the doctrine of divine healing.

The period skeptic of the era angle, among with mesmerism, hypnotism etc also have examples of persons who were not healed. At this time I have not located any information or interviews by skeptics investigating those who emphatically claimed they were healed such as the Romani who came to Christ because of stated healings; nevertheless I have some examples of those, given by some skeptics, who wanted healing and did not get it and shall include those in the article as well.SteamWiki (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Keep~~ As stated earlier I intend on working on the article,and to this end obtained another source Charles H Barfoot wrote the book Aimee Semple McPherson and the Making of Modern Pentecostalism, 1890-1926 which has details in areas glossed over or not covered by other biographers .

SteamWiki (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Redirect to Aimee Semple McPherson: per the NPOV maintenance tag which has been up for seven years and as a WP:POVFORK article. The article is written in the POV of a faith healer and duplicates the content of Aimee Semple McPherson. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Aimee Semple McPherson per nomination, non-neutral content fork. Daniel (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 views presented to 'delete' were probably marginally more grounded in policy than those opposite, and were definitely better-supported. On that basis I find that a consensus exists to delete these articles. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2003 Oakville municipal election[edit]

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

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

Two minimally-sourced articles about municipal council elections in a suburban town. Wikipedia long ago deprecated the idea that we need a standalone article about every town or city council election on earth -- what we need to see, to render a town or city council election notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is a significant volume and depth of reliable source coverage about the election to pass our notability criteria for events by establishing some context (specific issues that were debated, specific campaign proposals, etc.) for what would make the event significant to a wider audience than just Oakville alone.
But these are both just results tables with boilerplate process introductions, featuring absolutely no content about any specific issues that may have been involved in the campaign -- and one is referenced solely to the muncipal government's own primary source election results on its own self-published website, while the other adds just one piece of "incumbent mayor announces that she won't run again" in the town's own community hyperlocal, which isn't enough coverage to pass NEVENT all by itself.
In addition, it warrants note that the established consensus of WP:CANADA for Ontario municipal elections has long been to have one omnibus article per county, region or district, rather than separate articles for each individual town or city in a county, region or district -- so Halton Region articles might be fine, if somebody can actually be bothered to write substantive articles with proper context and sourcing to establish their significance, but Oakville doesn't need its own standalone articles separately from Halton, and there isn't nearly enough context or sourcing here to make "move these to Halton Region and walk away" a viable alternative. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I believe Oakville is large enough that it can warrant having articles on its own municipal elections. I mean, it does have more people than most of Ontario's counties and districts, which we've agreed get to have their own articles. Yes, ideally this would be merged with a greater article for Halton Region, but we don't have articles on Halton's other municipal elections in 2003, so I think it's fine to have a standalone article until that time comes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not without reliably sourcing its significance, it isn't. There's no such thing as "place large enough that its municipal elections are exempted from having to have any sourcing to establish their significance" — even Toronto and Montreal don't have municipal election articles because they're large, they have municipal election articles because GNG-worthy reliable sources establish their municipal elections as significant and enable us to write articles with substantive information beyond just a bunch of raw vote totals. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the article needs more sources, but if they were added would you withdraw this AfD? I know reliable sources exist on this topic (and a quick search at newspapers.com confirms this).-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be happy to over-time amalgamate these into a larger article encompassing Halton Region Millsy0303 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: sure, it's a "suburban town", but Oakville is also the 25th largest municipality in Canada, and the 11th largest in Ontario by population size. That, by itself, does not establish notability for this particular election, but it suggests reliable non-primary resources should be available, including coverage in national news outlets. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't keep articles on the basis of guesses about what reliable non-primary resources "should" be available — we keep or delete articles on the basis of hard evidence about what reliable non-primary resources have or haven't been demonstrated to exist. That is, we don't speculate that national news coverage might exist — if you can't show concrete evidence that national news coverage does exist, i.e. by showing actual proof that real pieces of national coverage really exist, then merely speculating that it could exist carries no weight. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- This article is sourced exactly as well as most municipal elections, with local election-result outlets. Policy and precedence are in conflict here, and I would side with precedence. On virtually any other topic, I'd do the reverse, but elections have always been an odd duck in the encyclopaedia. I do not think that deletion of this particular article improves the encyclopaedia (WP:DDH). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What precedent exempts election articles from having to have proper sourcing? Any plausible precedent for that was kiboshed at least a decade ago, and local election articles are now routinely deleted if they don't have adequate sourcing. We rely on media coverage, not just the town or city council's own self-published results on its own self-published website, to establish the notability of municipal elections, and these aren't citing media coverage — so they aren't "sourced exactly as well as most municipal elections" in any sense, because municipal elections get sourced to media coverage if they intend to get kept. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly agree with you on the policy side. As I said, I have always !voted on strict policy guidelines in anything other than local elections. However, a quick survey of a few dozen articles about municipal elections shows that most of them seems to have exactly the same sources and, presumably, precisely the same lack of wider (non-local) media coverage. I still don't think that deleting this (or the dozens of other, similar articles) improves the encyclopaedia, and I feel that this is an example of an encyclopaedic article with valid, useful information. I believe that's why AfDs are consensus-based discussions, to notice and act on cases where a strict application of policy hurts the encyclopaedia. I feel that this is such a case, and you don't. That's a reasonable part of discussion. If consensus agrees with your position, I will happily accept that. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete There are several reasons for deletion, primarily WP:NOTDATABASE. While we generally should be fine with sourcing from a government website (in this case results of an election), the problem is that these pages are just that - simple reassertion of the data. There is no sourced content that indicates the significance of the election (either for the municipality or any of the candidates). Size of municipality does not mean (much) anymore and has no basis in policy, as Bearcat mentions. Also some of the information is contanined in 2003 Ontario municipal elections, whcih could be expanded so the information is not lost. --Enos733 (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any indepedent coverage about these elections. Delete both for a lack of independent souces, as this is a failture of WP:NOTDATABASE. Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you try newspapers.com? There was plenty of coverage in the Toronto Star and Hamilton Spectator, especially considering how close the race was. Even the Globe and Mail (not in newspapers.com, but source added) weighed in when recount was conducted.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: As @Earl Andrew said, seeing as there are no articles about the Halton Region municipal elections in both 2006 and 2003, until the time comes that those exist it would be best to keep these to be transferred over. I would be happy to take that project on. Millsy0303 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Oakville isn't the type of city where the local elections have more than local importance, and there's no clear lasting coverage of the event. Just because a race is a close one doesn't mean an election necessarily qualifies for its own article. Furthermore, a clear ATD exists where this could me merged into the Halton region, but it should not be its own stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: article is only of local interest. Therefore the topic fails WP:NOT (which needs to apply alongside WP:GNG to keep any article). More specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The sources provide no convincing evidence of overall notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The coverage that I'm seeing here is extremely local in nature, and is routine coverage to boot. I don't see how a population of 200,000 is large enough to make the election so significant that we can ignore the lack of coverage. I'll also note that we don't have articles on many elections outside the global north in which the electorates were orders of magnitude larger. To be clear, I'm not saying that that is a reason to delete this; rather, that that lack shows there isn't a well-established or consistent precedent for local elections of a certain size, and that the lack of SIGCOV becomes harder to overcome as a consequence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think that further relistings would break this lack of consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kyohei Ushio[edit]

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

Not a notable athlete – simply competing isn't enough. Likewise does NATH provide for national championships – only international and intercontinental. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Japan. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep he obviously meets the 4th WP:NTRACK standard "won their country's senior national championship" after having won the national championship three times. DCsansei (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NTRACK states that significant coverage likely exists. Do you have any SIGCOV? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(bit of a rant) A question: what is the point of having a criterion like that if there is absolutely no meaning to meeting it (which is essentially you're suggestion) - there should be some kind of presumption / immunity / some kind of less lenient treatment for subjects who were clearly stars in their country decades before the internet era, and in places where there is absolutely no way we can get the sources that we can be 99% sure they were covered in, absent something ludicrous like myself learning Japanese, traveling to Japan and digging through expensive offline library archives in the span of a week; now, besides that, at the Japanese wiki there are two offline sources that look like they've got a decent chance of being sigcov: one is titled "Kyohei Shio passes away - Melbourne Olympic track and field representative" from 47News (probably tossup as to whether its sigcov, but its a deadlink so we can't know as additionally the Wayback Machine never archived it on time) - then there's another one from the further reading section called "The Retsuden of Athletics" from an offline magazine. Now, I have no idea what a "retsuden" means but the fact that it is listed in the "further reading" section demonstrates that it likely is an in-depth story on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. As I see it, the whole point of having secondary criteria is that when someone meets that criteria, there's a presumption of notability. Obviously it would be nice if we could easily access archives going back half a century but as far as this deletion discussion goes, he meets a notability criteria for retention. Hopefully the article will be worked on further. DCsansei (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: as meeting WP:NTRACK and as the Japanese wikipedia has non-trivial source(s) about him, which can then be used to grow the article more than a stub. WP:SNG like WP:NTRACK are not only tools to presume notability but also reflections of past consensus and past precedent in deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guatemala women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mayuri Cayetano[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2010, 2014, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Guatemala. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers. Per above. The biography article only mentions here career and I found almost no information about this person online. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect – Criteria already adopted in others similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers: per nomination बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government platform[edit]

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

Delete Article is nothing more than a vague WP:DICTIONARY article. No sources added for 16 years, and anything relevant to a country's government platform would already be covered in its own article. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Vague dictionary definition with no sources. Worth noting however, the similar term "government as a platform" could possibly meet notability (even if it is just a buzzword). Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This could be merged to political platform, but that just redirects to party platform, which is not the same thing. British-originated two-party politics doesn't need separate government and party platforms, because the dominant party gets to dictate the government platforms, but this doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist in genuine multi-party democracies. The term has been used at least with Finland and Austria. --vuo (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: as a dictionary definition, per others. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) *Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1958 Torneio Rio-São Paulo[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A stats-only article for the 1958 edition of Torneio Rio–São Paulo. Suggest merging the little text info Torneio Rio–São Paulo. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Brazil. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – No indication of notability? The Rio-São Paulo Tournament was the most important competition in Brazilian football until the implementation of the Brazilian Championship. The article follows the same pattern adopted in other similar (examples: 1, 2, 3), and there is a substantial amount of sources on the competition, such as in the digital collection of the national library of Brazil as example. Svartner (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Svartner - article needs improving, not deletion. Giant Snowman 12:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viktoria Dimova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect – Criteria already adopted in others similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above or to Bulgaria women's national football team (it has her birth date). Suitskvarts (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artdc.org[edit]

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

Delete Seems to fail WP:NOTE as there is no WP:SIGCOV. All external links are minor references and most of the links on the article are defunct. Possibly could be salvaged at a later point, but WP:TNT seems the way to go unless it gets cleaned up. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just massively stubbed it, but I'm still confused by what it is, or was. It seems to have a tie to Artomatic, but I'm not sure a redirect there makes sense. I'll try to keep working on it during the AfD if I can. Star Mississippi 23:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – no independent citations, either. The only citation is a self-reference. Ira Leviton (talk)
Delete. Redirecting to Artomatic would make sense if the page mention it. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vusala Hajiyeva[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2021, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Azerbaijan. JTtheOG (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above or to Azerbaijan women's national football team (for it has her birth date). Suitskvarts (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Utamo[edit]

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

Contested draftification of an article about a grandiose planned Saudi resort development. Draftified by User:AntiDionysius as promotional and advertising. Moved back to article space by its originator. The text of the article is about what the Saudi government says about the planned resort, not about what third parties have said about it, so that it does not speak for itself. A check of the references shows that none of them are independent sources. They are all either publications by the Saudi government, or press releases by the Saudi government to news media, and so it does not satisfy general notability.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.neom.com	Announcement of establishment of NEOM	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.neom.com	Announcement of plans for UTAMO in NEOM	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	www.arabnews.com	Reads like a press release from the Saudi office developing NEOM and UTAMO	No, a press release	Yes	Yes	Sort of
4	www.spa.gov.sa. Saudi Press Agency	States that it is a press release	No, a press release	Yes	Yes	No

The project is probably too soon for independent secondary coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Saudi Arabia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: problem of promotional language remains, and all the sourcing reasons for deletion laid out here make total sense. I think at this stage it will be difficult to find any source that isn't almost all PR fluff - - AntiDionysius (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment by nominator:

This is the first of four articles about parts of NEOM, a grandiose Saudi commercial, industrial, and recreational development:

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. And no surprise there, as it doesn't exist yet. Maproom (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tessi[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The sources were either brief coverage of news events such as acquisitions plus two that were pretty clearly posting of their press releases/ self descriptions. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Management, Technology, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as spam. Draftifying would still be on the table, but the creator is blocked now. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sri Edi Swasono[edit]

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

Fails WP:NECONOMIST, no significant coverage found online. Article also seems a little too favourable towards the subject. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Economics, and Indonesia. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This Indonesian economist passes (weakly) WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL, was a member of the MPR (national parliament) in the late 1980s [12] [13]. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as he was the part of People's Consultative Assembly, he will pass notability by WP:NPOL. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mixed between redirect/merge and keep. A few expressed sentiments that the article had been improved over the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burton Waters[edit]

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

This is not a settlement - it's a commercial housing development which must meet WP:GNG to be notable. Other than a routine planning announcement in the local press this development does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show that it is notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - Burton parish council have noted Burton Waters as part of the parish, additionally there are plenty of news articles, a memoir for Odder and Burton Fen about the Woodcocks pub in Burton Waters. May I also point to these links outside of Lincolnshire?

[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

Plenty of sources there including an ons map and Lincolnshire CC Annual Report patrol uk.

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional sources:

[19] - Mentions Burton Waters Lincolnshire
[20] - Mentions Burton Waters
[21] - Mentions Burton Waters and the development
[22] - Gym at Burton Waters
[23] - Scholar report about the Burton Waters cup Bronze something

More sources that prove it does exist and is notable DragonofBatley (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crouch, Swale, @PamD, @JMF, @A D Hope, @KeithD, @Eopsid and @Rupples. Thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primary sources, maps and mentions do not support notability. At best this is a merge/redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire. Also please read WP:VOTESTACKING. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DragonofBatley, I'm not sure it was necessary to make that "Oppose" word bigger. The argument doesn't get more weight from using bigger font. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly merge with Burton, Lincolnshire its parish? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and redirect Yes, I agree. That is the solution we have used for neighbourhoods in Milton Keynes. See for example Stantonbury (the parish) contains Bancroft, Blue Bridge, Bradville, Linford Wood, Oakridge Park and Stantonbury. So at best Burton Waters should be a redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire#Burton Waters. Hope that squares the circle? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Amended retrospectively to show my !vote more evidently for the closer's convenience. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonymous MK2006: You may have an interest because sauce for this goose is sauce for the Eagle Farm, Milton Keynes and Newton Leys ganders, as they are exceptions that disprove my rule above. So if this goose is cooked for the Xmas table, then you can guess what must happen next. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that Burton (strictly "Burton-by-Lincoln") is a CP. NOMIS just has it as built-up area. The citation given in the article for the population figures is dead, but the number is a lot more that NOMIS gives. So what is the actual parish? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JMF It's a parish - see below. PamD 23:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire. Unsurprisingly, the Lincolnshire Echo has sustained coverage on the planning and proposals for, and objections to the development from 1992 onwards, with which to write a background to the development. It looks to have been controversial. They can be found in the the British Newspaper Archive. An example is here for those who have access: [24]. There's enough to pass the GNG. Although a part of of Burton civil parish, the Ordnance Survey does describe it as a village and it looks to have a resident population so may come within the scope of WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place with presumed notability. I did consider whether I was WP:CANVASSED and should express an opinion. I don't think User:DragonofBatley's notifications amount to WP:VOTESTACKING. I've had no prior discussion about this topic, so DragonofBatley had no idea of my opinion. Looking at the editors contacted they are regular contributors to WP:UKGEO. I'm firmly of the opinion this has been done to broaden the number of contributors to the discussion, not to sway the discussion in a specific direction. Rupples (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC). Changed initial opinion for reason set out in reply to User:Reywas92 below.Reply[reply]
Merge to Burton, Lincolnshire. This seems to be a gated residential and marina development, not a real settlement (as shown by the mention of second home owners on the Parish Council website, and the fact that it has candle shop, cafes, giftshop etc rather than practical shops, church, etc: a visitor attraction). (Please link to that Parish Council website, especially if using if to assert notability). I've cleaned up some sloppy non-sentences, fixed a link to a dab page, removed a link to another dab page (please, Dragon, use the helpful gadget which helps editors avoid accidental links to dab pages: I've told you about it before. Or, please check carefully every link you make, to be sure it goes somewhere useful.), but am not convinced it has notability beyond its developers' publicity. Re JMF's point: according to MAPIT the pub is definitely in Burton CP, and the parish council does exist, just no-one has yet mentioned it in the article on the village. I think it's called "Burton-by-Lincoln" or similar - am on phone, too much effort to find it again. PamD 23:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, moving to desktop machine and falling down the usual Wikipedia rabbithole... the article Burton, Lincolnshire now has a link to the NOMIS 2011 census (yes, parish pop is indeed 625 in 2011), and now has mention of, and link to, the Parish Council (which uses "Burton-by-Lincoln"). That article doesn't at present mention Burton Waters. PamD 23:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the website given in the infobox is of a boat sales company, not a place. PamD 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. That's inappropriate so I've removed it. Rupples (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources: Architects' Journal no. 220 feature [25], mention [26].Rupples (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Burton, Lincolnshire. Neighborhood/development within the parish doesn't need a separate article, can be covered together. Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a valid point and the Burton article could do with additional content. While I believe there's sufficient sourcing to pass the GNG for a separate article on the topic, it doesn't need to have one and in any case the demographic stats cover both places. Changing opinion to merge. Rupples (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. My opinion has fluctuated between keep and merge. The article has been expanded and refocussed on the development's/settlement's history since being nominated for deletion. Most of what could be taken as promotional referencing and text has been removed. I believe distinct settlements within the same parish that are physically separated from each other by non-built up land are normally covered by separate articles where sources are sufficient to write more than a stub. This is the case here. It is preferable for the Burton, Lincolnshire article to be expanded with a separate history of the overall parish and village of Burton-by-Lincoln and the Burton Waters article wikilinked — a brief Google search reveals content that could be used to expand the Burton article. Other than a promotional sounding narrative on the parish council's website there seems little in common between the two villages.[27] and thus little context would be added by combining the two articles into one. Rupples (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rupples: as the article stands today, Burton, Lincolnshire is an article about the CP of that name. It contains (and at present entrely consists of) material about a constituent village called Burton-by-Lincoln. I don't see an obvious reason why it couldn't contain a section about another village in the same parish, as many CP articles do? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a policy/guideline to merge distinct settlements within a civil parish into an article on the parish? I'm not aware there is, but maybe I've missed it. The lead of Burton, Lincolnshire was recently changed away from being about the village to be an article on Burton civil parish, presumably in response to and help support a merge opinion at this AfD. Nothing wrong with that per se but I don't believe this route is preferable here now Burton Waters has been expanded. Burton Waters is a settlement and so has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND (there have been additional residential schemes built since the marina part opened and development is ongoing). I don't see an obvious reason why Burton Waters shouldn't have its own article when readers seeking information on the place will likely search for it under its own name rather than the parish. Rupples (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes. "Burton" and "Burton-by-Lincoln" are synonymous names which means they should be covered in a single article however its fine to have separate articles for other places in the settlement like Burton Waters. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a pity that the Architects' Journal feature [28] (and to prove it's Burton Waters [29]) are only snippets (and despite searching I can't find a full version). It looks to have a description of some of the architectural features, but I've not added text from it because of uncertainty over content especially, who is saying what. Rupples (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep per improvements. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've remained off Wikipedia since this article was nominated for deletion. I made a bunch of improvements by researching more books and scholars mentions of BW. I found a lot of sources as shared above in my responses and I'm still of the opinion per WP: Geoland and WP: Notability. The article has enough stance to remain in place and when looking at the different sources from websites and news to books and history. There's plenty of material for the settlement to be notable and worth an article of its own. It has bus times and services listed, it has it's own estate, it has plenty of sign posts and also the pub there is the oldest building dating back to the 60s before the entire area was redeveloped and the land was all previously occupied. So I lean heavily towards Rupples and Crouch, Swales points but Burton isn't part of this area it's a separate settlement being nearly a mile or so away. It's in the same parish district and county of course but not the same bua with greenbelt between them. Also look at Skellingthorpe (Great Northern Railway) railway station map coordinates and you'll see Burton Waters. Not that it served it but the site was near to the area. As well as said bus times/services and the Burton CP website among other things like books and the Burton Waters Cup. They all mention the area. So I feel the article can be improved but a rash deletion is not the way to do it. Be like putting Hykeham for deletion because of Birth and South Hykeham but the area is in Lincoln and notable so is Burton Waters. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meant North Hykeham and South Hykeham as well as Hykeham. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. As argued in previous comments. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Appears to be a development which has become somewhat of a populated place - in any case, it passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments invited re two similar cases

At talk:Wavendon#Merge and redirect, I ask for advice on whether there is any need for a formal RM to merge two (fairly significant) residential developments (either side of 52°01′58″N 0°39′44″W / 52.032838°N 0.662351°W / 52.032838; -0.662351, if anyone cares to look) into the Wavendon (CP and village) article. "Compare and contrast" those cases with this one. Advice welcome at talk:Wavendon. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wahyu Aditya[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2011, the subject fails WP:CREATIVE. There may be some sources in Indonesian that I've missed, but I can't find any significant coverage online. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, Comics and animation, and Indonesia. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There are a few articles in Indonesian, but I looked into it and there are only interviews, WP:PRIMARY. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toptani Shopping Center[edit]

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

One reference. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Albania. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Insignificant in size and a lack of independent coverage so fails WP:GNG. Promotional in tone. Ajf773 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom. Iaof2017 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as non-notable promo. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spencer Monroe[edit]

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

Non-notable the walking dead character Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge Merge per above. This shouldn’t be it’s own article but should be mentioned among the list of characters. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. No sources indicate this character is independently notable. There may be mergeable content for the list of characters. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to the character list. WP:BEFORE only shows a minor character with less than significant coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chloee Kleespies[edit]

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

College athlete fails WP:GNG and does not come close to WP:NATH. Lots of search results, but none are WP:INDEPENDENT, all media related to her high school or college. A412 (Talk • C) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Pennsylvania. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete College athletes are generally not notable, and with pretty much all sources here just being results statistics or routine player roster profiles, I see no basis for an exception here. I also request the author learn how to use the past tense; I'm astonished by the 42 instances of "would", which is a modal auxillary word used for future of the past, not regular past. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, there are some GNG sources I found from a brief search at e.g. [30] [31] [32]. Being local or college newspaper media does not preclude a source from being independent, a more specific rationale needs to be provided for each of the available sources. --Habst (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First one is "The Official Website of Georgia State University Athletics". I don't think this is even a "college newspaper", the website for an athletic program an athlete plays for is not independent. Second one is borderline. It's better, it's not literally the athletic program, but I would give it serious audience-size concerns. Third one is plainly a trivial mention. It's one paragraph in a list of 24 athletes. That's one borderline GNG source out of the three. A412 (Talk • C) 03:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I looked more deeply into the second source. That's ...not even a newspaper. That's the "News" section of the UToledo website. That's not a RS; there's no editorial policy, it's not independent of the university. A412 (Talk • C) 03:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A412, thank you for evaluating the sources because it's important to scrutinize our references. Can you please speak more to the Chester County Press source? It is a newspaper, presumably independent, and an entire section of the article with prose is devoted to the subject. If the mention was just one sentence, I would agree that it is trivial, but in this case it is an entire section. Also, even if not independent, the first two sources can still be used to add information to the article per policy. --Habst (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Vanessa Robitson, the Avon Grove High School athletic director, led a presentation on 24 student-athletes who excelled in their respective sports-and in the classroom". This article goes on to list all twenty four of them. There's no editorial independence here. "an entire section of the article with prose is devoted to the subject" -- there's six sentences. It's not that local media can't contribute to notability, but even local media didn't think she was an important enough person to write more than a few sentences, let alone an entire article about. A412 (Talk • C) 18:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And actually local media can't contribute to notability of young athletes! JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, that's not exactly true, all NSPORT requires is that it clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage; which it states excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications, but not all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Zero evidence of SIGCOV. The Chester County source has a blurb on the subject as it does on all the other 23 student athlete honorees for the fall season at Avon Grove HS. The blurbs were almost certainly only lightly adapted a submission by the school's athletic director, so likely not independent. Regardless, it's not SIGCOV and decidedly fails the requirement that coverage of HS athletes go way beyond local news reports. If this was all we needed to meet SPORTCRIT then all 24 of these high school athletes would merit articles (as would I!).

JoelleJay (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources provided in this discussion, the first 2 are not independent, as they originate from the school the subject attended, while the last one does not provide us with the significant coverage needed. None of the sources in the article itself are any better. User:Let'srun 14:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I haven't gone redirect as an AtD as it was objected to with a reasonable explanation following its proposition as an alternative, but if any editor believes this should be a redirect they're welcome to create it editorially. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brewster Road[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NROAD. Tagged for notability in August and no improvements in sourcing since then. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Generic short local road, baffled why this would need an article. Reywas92^Talk 02:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete—not notable. It's not a state highway, so it needs to meet GNG, which it fails. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NROAD --Artene50 (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It's a road, and nothing more, that happens to wind around the airport, but is simply not notable. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per ATD and CHEAP to Newark Liberty International Airport, where Brewster Road is mentioned and described at sufficient length. (i.e. no need to merge anything) gidonb (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete though this is likely the most notable Brewster Rd it is far from the only one to the point that I suspect a redirect would cause more confusion than it alleviates. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big News Network[edit]

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

Fake news mill per EU DisinfoLab. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP standard. Aronitz (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
●Keep- This needs to be re-written but it is well sourced with reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:G11 Kinopiko ^talk 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
on the contrary this article can be rewritten, the sources provided prove it is notable, G11 States: "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Draft Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Either moved to draft or delete for now. B-Factor (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article both the nomination and the unhelpful "Delete per nom" opinions come from editors with low edit counts so I'd like to see more opinions from more experienced editors, especially regarding the claim that this is a fake news mill.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I think that even if it is indeed fake news mill (which is not at all clear: here BNN states We have provided evidence that disproves the allegations and wish to reiterate that we have no involvement in the subject matter of your previous report, which appears to be the focus of your new report.), it doesn't automatically make it unworthy of a dedicated article on Wikipedia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously it operates a number of fake news websites. BBC News: ANI's news reports have found space in many mainstream Indian news outlets and publishers. Its content was further reproduced on more than 500 fake media websites across 95 countries, the researchers found. Websites identified by the report as fake media outlets include those owned by Big News Network, which describes itself as a "leading provider of news headlines with over 400 distinct categories of latest news".

I quoted WP:NCORP as the guideline that this private news agency clearly fails. Would you mind sharing in-depth non-routine references that meets WP:CORPDEPTH standard? All I could find are brief quotes in media quoting EU DisinfoLab's report(s). In its current form, the article is being used to give credibility to a list of fake news this agency operates. Aronitz (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: What does being fake news have to do with notability? We have articles about everything here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just pointed out a fact. We shouldn't give credibility/SEO value to a list of fake news websites this agency operates, especially when there is hardly any in-depth coverage about this company. Aronitz (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I dithered on this because of the EU Disinfo lab report(s) but they also do not provide sufficient detailed information about this company. It seems very unsual to me that there are a distinct lack of third parties writing about a news company of this size. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Uhai (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929. Thank you for creating the Merge target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1926 Delaware State Hornets football team[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive independent sources, only played a single game. Fails WP:NSEASONS Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Delaware State Hornets football unless SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder how are we supposed to deal with articles like this - not just for DelState but for early college seasons as a whole, many of which were like this. Historically, we have regarded and usually kept every season of a Division I program (I can't recall one ever having been deleted). Would some type of merger be best? I don't particularly like the idea of a plain redirect as then all the details of the season is then lost; I still think we should have these details somewhere. Also worth noting that DelState is a historically black program; the white papers didn't tend to cover black teams and people all that well and the black papers of the time are almost exclusively offline or don't exist anymore. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: This doesn't meet the GNG or NSEASONS. I'd be open to a redirect and merge of the info here into a new article covering this program in the 1920s per cbl62's suggestion in the 1924 deletion discussion, but waiting to see if anyone has any other ideas before I !vote. Understand what BF11 is saying but if there isn't GNG level coverage, this article can't stay as it is. This probably could've been a bundled nomination, but too late now. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The NCAA didn't even have divisions until 1973. The fact that a school plays at this type of competitive level now has no bearing on the 1920s. The fact that you can't recall any of these being deleted just means these obscure topics have avoided scrutiny until now and it's a pain in the rear to deal with hundreds of such articles. I could support a consolidated list of early seasons. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per Cbl62 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1924 Delaware State Hornets football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS ("In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article."). The Delaware State football program was just getting started in the 1920s and played a total of only 10 games during the decade. Merger is also consistent with our past precedents at 1924 Michigan Mines AfD (merging multiple articles into Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942) and 1879 Swarthmore AfD (merging early seasons into "Swarthmore football, 1878–1887"). Cbl62 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS. Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article per the GNG. User:Let'srun 16:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I feel like I've stated this a hundred times in relisting comments but a Merge is not possible unless there is an existing target article. Luckily, another Merge target article has been suggested so it's likely that this article will either be Redirected or Merged to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929. Now that the destination article has been created, this can be closed. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1924 Delaware State Hornets football team[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive independent sources, only played a single game. Fails WP:NSEASONS Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Delaware State Hornets football unless SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder how are we supposed to deal with articles like this - not just for DelState but for early college seasons as a whole, many of which were like this. Historically, we have regarded and usually kept every season of a Division I program (I can't recall one ever having been deleted). Would some type of merger be best? I don't particularly like the idea of a plain redirect as then all the details of the season is then lost; I still think we should have these details somewhere. Also worth noting that DelState is a historically black program; the white papers didn't tend to cover black teams and people all that well and the black papers of the time are almost exclusively offline or don't exist anymore. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggestion. The program was just getting started in the 1920s and played a total of only 10 games during the decade. I suggest merging the individual season articles into a single article covering Delaware State football "in the 1920s" or "early years" or "1924–1929". Such a solution has been followed for other programs, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1924 Michigan Mines football team (merging multiple articles into Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942) and is consistent with WP:NSEASONS ("In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article."). Cbl62 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to the Michigan Tech example, a similar precedent is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1879 Swarthmore Garnet Tide football team where early seasons for Swarthmore were merged into a single article titled "Swarthmore football, 1878–1887". Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I'd be open to a redirect and merge of the info here into a new article covering this program in the 1920s per Cbl62, but waiting to see if anyone has any other ideas. Let'srun (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS and my "Suggestion" above. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS. Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article per the GNG. User:Let'srun 16:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 oer above. // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I feel like I've stated this a hundred times in relisting comments but a Merge is not possible unless there is an existing target article. If you want a Merge to another article, get started creating it. Otherwise this looks like a Redirect or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929. Now that the destination article has been created, this can be closed. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1925 Delaware State Hornets football team[edit]

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

Not a notable season, sourced only to the university's own team guide. Failure of WP:NSEASONS, they only played two *high school* teams. Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless improved. The claim that the team "represented Delaware State University in the 1925 college football season" is false, because no college matches were played, and as such the rug is swept from under the article. Geschichte (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Delaware State Hornets football unless SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder how are we supposed to deal with articles like this - not just for DelState but for early college seasons as a whole, many of which were like this. Historically, we have regarded and usually kept every season of a Division I program (I can't recall one ever having been deleted). Would some type of merger be best? I don't particularly like the idea of a plain redirect as then all the details of the season is then lost; I still think we should have these details somewhere. Also worth noting that DelState is a historically black program; the white papers didn't tend to cover black teams and people all that well and the black papers of the time are almost exclusively offline or don't exist anymore. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'd be open to a redirect and merge of the info here into a new article covering this program in the 1920s, but waiting to see if anyone has any other ideas before I !vote. Let'srun (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per Cbl62 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1924 Delaware State Hornets football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS ("In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article."). The Delaware State football program was just getting started in the 1920s and played a total of only 10 games during the decade. Merger is also consistent with our past precedents at 1924 Michigan Mines AfD (merging multiple articles into Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942) and 1879 Swarthmore AfD (merging early seasons into "Swarthmore football, 1878–1887"). Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS. Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article per the GNG. User:Let'srun 16:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I feel like I've stated this a hundred times in relisting comments but a Merge is not possible unless there is an existing target article. If you want a Merge to another article, get started creating it. Otherwise this looks like a Redirect or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wishes to explore a reframe/renaming of the content as per Vanamonde93, I am happy to undelete and draftify at any good-faith request on my talk page. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lisa Helfend Meyer[edit]

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

Subject is named as a lawyer in a number of news items, but I see no evidence that she has "gained national recognition" or some such thing; really none of the sources discuss her as a person, as a lawyer, etc. Judging from the sources, she's only "known" for being sanctioned, a fact conveniently left out of this fluffy biography. I do not believe this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: creator restored this bit of resume info, which I removed before I decided there wasn't anything in the article that could claim notability. I'm not going to remove it: visitors to this AfD can decide the value of claims such as "has been quoted as a legal expert" is verified by self-penned pieces such as this. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"legal expert" portion is off the page BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:HEY, WP:NBIO, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV: Gender diversity on Wikipedia is important, especially in the field of law. Lisa represented the woman in the Trevor Bauer case and Trevor Bauer verbally attacked her on "X" which garnered over 70 million views and Elon Musk shared conspiracy theories about Lisa on "X" which received over 11 million views, claiming she withheld evidence and suggested "Counter-suit?", Lisa represented Dr Dre's ex-wife, Lisa represented google founder's ex-wife, and others tbd... Lisa Helfend Meyer had 100s of articles written about her and tv appearances when she represented a woman who suffered severe brain damage during the birth of her triplets... also see Laura Wasser for reference who is often the competing attorney in her cases. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I am tired of working on this page today. I will refrain unless I am required to in order to prevent deletion. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A great deal of editing has gone on with this article since its nomination and I think it is worth some additional time to review and reevaluate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - as an initial note, I removed sources from the article, including WP:PAGESIX, court records, and Twitter [33], as well as blog posts [34], [35]. In the article, sources include a "LA Times Content Solutions" source which is a promotional interview. There are also five sources listed to support article content stating Meyer gained national recognition for a case - but the coverage is about the case, without indication that anything about Meyer's work specifically became a focus of coverage or recognition. Then there are five sources about a case she lost, including what appears to be a duplicated AP reprint. There is also a Vanity Fair article that briefly mentions her twice in the same paragraph, about a deposition she conducted, and the court not making an adverse inference against the opposing party. There is also a non-working link to a Yahoo source, the archive version shows it is Madamenoire, recycling WP:PAGESIX etc. There is also Venture Blvd, which looks a lot like a blog, and a Whittier Daily News source about her and her husband and their house. There is also her HuffPost contributor profile, a link to something she wrote at CSQ, another profile page, and then three more news reports about court cases mentioning her briefly, including WP:TMZ. Based on the available sources, it does not appear possible to write a balanced biography that is not WP:PROMO, and WP:BASIC/WP:GNG also does not seem supported by independent, reliable, and secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it no longer says "gained national recognition" BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also note WP:SPORTSKEEDA has been added as a reference [36], but this source is "considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the websites content, which is largely user-written" at WP:RSP. Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Abbie Cohen Dorn case, Meyer's work is in fact the focus of coverage in more articles than I can count. Each article includes a quote from her, suggesting that she was important in the end result. Here are a few more. Severely disabled, is she still a mother?, Does quadriplegic have right to visit kids?, Court fight waged over brain-damaged mom's triplets BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the Jewish Chronicle where "Meyer points to the California Family Code, which says that the public policy of this state is to make sure children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents." Meyer was also in a 48 Hours (TV program) episode talking about it. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secondary coverage could include independent and reliable sources that analyze, evaluate, or interpret of her role and impact in the case - essentially some form of commentary about her role. From my view, that type of coverage, even if it is brief, could be combined with other independent, reliable, secondary coverage according to the WP:BASIC guideline to help support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To highlight her impact in the Abbie Cohen Dorn case, and the significance of the ruling, I have added more material to the article. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source cited [37] for the new article content "As a first case of its kind, the result set a precedent for future cases of a similar nature, having implications for other disabled parents seeking child visitation rights" does not say this - it says "An unprecedented, horrific legal dispute is coming up in LA." The new article content appears to be original research - an independent, reliable, secondary source discussing the impact of this case is needed, because we cannot make original interpretations of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meyer said ""There is no case in point that addresses Abbie's particular circumstance, whether someone in her condition has a constitutional right to parent or visit her children." example 1 "This is a precedent-setting case"example 2 example 3 and ABC30 article says "Lawyers on both sides say the ruling could have implications for other disabled parents". I will change the wording to say "could". BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meyer referring to the case as having no case on point (example 1) or as "precedent-setting" [38] (example 2/CNN Wire), [39] (example 3/Associated Press) does not support saying the case "set a precedent" in WP:WIKIVOICE; this is commentary by Meyer about the case, not commentary by an independent reliable source about the case. A source saying opposing counsel noted there could be "implications" for other parents and children in the future does not support referring to this family law trial court decision as precedent - no independent and reliable source appears to have said this trial court decision is precedent. Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - why is Laura Wasser not WP:PROMO? If I can uncover more sources that meet the requirements, will you reconsider? Other sources are available that were never added (hopefully secondary, independent, notable), but why should I bother wasting my time and adding them if the odds of this article remaining seem low. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an essay titled Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that can be helpful to consider, including the What about article x? section, essentially "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. [...] So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." However, if there are reliable sources that provide independent and secondary coverage of Meyer, I encourage listing them here for consideration, because this could influence the outcome of this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Please be a bit patient with me as I attempt to compile acceptable sources and show notability. I am sort of busy since it is Christmas Eve. First off, does this source (Attorney at Law Magazine) provide any use for the Wikipedia page? Lisa Helfend Meyer: It’s a Woman’s World BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do note the discussion was relisted at 19:41 21 December 2023, so it is likely to run until at least 28 December 2023. As to the Attorney at Law Magazine source, this does not seem helpful for supporting notability because this source is primarily based on an interview with Meyer and two of her co-workers, so this substantially lacks independence; another concern is the source generally: a Target Market Media trade publication, based on the About page, which does not list staff nor editorial standards. Beccaynr (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I researched all the above criticisms. Considerable updates have been made to this page since the last discussion. Removed fluffy language, added reliable sources (removed generally unreliable sources to the best of my ability), removed Meyer's clients Sebastien Izambard, Donna D'Errico, Kenya Barris, Kelly Clarkson ex-husband found in court docs but without RS sources, and included more details about the Abbie Cohen Dorn case while avoiding what may appear to be original research. I plan on digging into the Trevor Bauer case in more detail to highlight Meyer's involvement. Thank you for sharing recommendations on how you think I can improve an article. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Developing encyclopedic content requires more than verifiability, particularly in biographies of living people. Various policy-based reasons include (according to WP:NOTNEWS) the need to consider the enduring notability of people, because most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style, and because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, e.g. Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. And when developing an article, particularly with sensationalized news coverage, the WP:NOTSCANDAL policy should be considered, because content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy - parties to cases are also protected by BLP policy.
So the HuffPo contributor and CSQ Magazine contributor profiles, news reports about other people that briefly mention Meyer represents a party, a post from informationliberation.com about an "Instahoe" and Elon Musk comments, and a link to a podcast Meyer appeared on, do not help support notability nor develop encyclopedic content according to guidelines or policy. If there is independent, reliable, secondary coverage about Meyer and/or her work, I continue to encourage posting sources in this discussion, to make review easier, because Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Here is what I believe to be independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of the Abbie Cohen Dorn case. Whether you think it is enduring notability, depends on your interpretion of her role and impact in the case based on the collective commentary 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources listed above are news coverage of the case, without substantial secondary analysis, evaluation, or commentary about Meyer, and include some reprinted Associated Press coverage; there are brief mentions of Meyer, often based on quotes:

Sources
Severely disabled, is she still a mom? (Pioneer Press, Apr 18, 2010 "...Meyer, ... said, “There is no case in point... ...But as she argued in March during a pretrial hearing... ...Meyer points to the California Family Code, which says that the “public policy of this state” is...") Judge allows parents of disabled woman to seek visitation rights on her behalf (LA Times, Apr 21, 2010 "Meyer...argued...parents and conservators, have a right to make decisions on her behalf..." "Meyer characterized [Superior Court judge] Diaz’s action as “a huge victory.”...") Paralyzed mom of triplets seeks to see her kids (The Associated Press/NBC News, Apr 21, 2010 "...Meyer, argued that her client has a fundamental right to representation because she cannot speak for herself. ...the attorney argued...") California – LA Judge: Disabled Jewish Women’s Parents Can Fight For Her Rights (VinNews, Apr. 21, 2010) - appears to be a low-quality source, and repeats similar content from similar news sources Parents of paralyzed woman fight for her right to visit her children (Associated Press/Syracuse.com, Apr 22, 2010 "Meyer, argued that her client has a fundamental right to representation because she cannot speak for herself. ...the attorney argued...") Court fight waged over brain-damaged mom's triplets (CNN, Apr 22, 2010 "...said Lisa Helfend Meyer, the Cohens' attorney.") Calif. judge to rule if kids can see paralyzed mom (Associated Press/Deseret News, Mar 24, 2011 "...attorney Lisa Meyer said during closing arguments at a hearing..." "...argues that..." "...complained that...") California judge to rule if kids can see paralyzed mom (Associated Press/Enid News, Mar 24, 2011) Calif. judge to rule if kids can see paralyzed mom (Associated Press/Seattle Times, Mar 25, 2011) Judge To Decide if Paralyzed Mom Has Right to See Her Kids (ABC News, Mar 24, 2011 "Meyer...said...) Does quadriplegic have right to visit kids? (ABC7, Mar 24 2011 "...said Lisa Helfend-Meyer... ...said Helfend-Meyer. The judge's decision is scheduled to be announced Friday morning. It is an interim decision." Severely disabled mother wins visitation rights (CNN, Mar 25, 2011 ""This is a precedent-setting case," said attorney Lisa Helfend Meyer... The ruling is technically considered temporary, pending a full trial in the case." Disabled mother Abbie Dorn fighting for the right to see her triplets (The Telegraph, Mar 27, 2011 "In an unusual case that must address difficult medical, ethical and legal questions... ...said Lisa Helfend-Meyer." Severely disabled, is she still a mother? (The Jewish Chronicle, Nov 24, 2016 "Meyer ... said, "There is no case in point... ...Meyer points to the California Family Code, which says that the "public policy of this state" is...") - this is an opinion piece about the case in the "Let's Talk" section, and seems based on the 2010 Pioneer Press coverage, not only appearing to quote it, but also beginning by stating "An unprecedented, horrific legal dispute is coming up in LA." The 'unprecedented, horrific, legal dispute' phrase links to an LA Times copy of the 2010 Pioneer Press source: Severely disabled, is she still a mom?, so the 2016 date of this source is probably not accurate.

Sources

Severely disabled, is she still a mom? (Pioneer Press, Apr 18, 2010 "...Meyer, ... said, “There is no case in point... ...But as she argued in March during a pretrial hearing... ...Meyer points to the California Family Code, which says that the “public policy of this state” is...")
Judge allows parents of disabled woman to seek visitation rights on her behalf (LA Times, Apr 21, 2010 "Meyer...argued...parents and conservators, have a right to make decisions on her behalf..." "Meyer characterized [Superior Court judge] Diaz’s action as “a huge victory.”...")
Paralyzed mom of triplets seeks to see her kids (The Associated Press/NBC News, Apr 21, 2010 "...Meyer, argued that her client has a fundamental right to representation because she cannot speak for herself. ...the attorney argued...")
California – LA Judge: Disabled Jewish Women’s Parents Can Fight For Her Rights (VinNews, Apr. 21, 2010) - appears to be a low-quality source, and repeats similar content from similar news sources
Parents of paralyzed woman fight for her right to visit her children (Associated Press/Syracuse.com, Apr 22, 2010 "Meyer, argued that her client has a fundamental right to representation because she cannot speak for herself. ...the attorney argued...")
Court fight waged over brain-damaged mom's triplets (CNN, Apr 22, 2010 "...said Lisa Helfend Meyer, the Cohens' attorney.")
Calif. judge to rule if kids can see paralyzed mom (Associated Press/Deseret News, Mar 24, 2011 "...attorney Lisa Meyer said during closing arguments at a hearing..." "...argues that..." "...complained that...")
California judge to rule if kids can see paralyzed mom (Associated Press/Enid News, Mar 24, 2011)
Calif. judge to rule if kids can see paralyzed mom (Associated Press/Seattle Times, Mar 25, 2011)
Judge To Decide if Paralyzed Mom Has Right to See Her Kids (ABC News, Mar 24, 2011 "Meyer...said...)
Does quadriplegic have right to visit kids? (ABC7, Mar 24 2011 "...said Lisa Helfend-Meyer... ...said Helfend-Meyer. The judge's decision is scheduled to be announced Friday morning. It is an interim decision."
Severely disabled mother wins visitation rights (CNN, Mar 25, 2011 ""This is a precedent-setting case," said attorney Lisa Helfend Meyer... The ruling is technically considered temporary, pending a full trial in the case."
Disabled mother Abbie Dorn fighting for the right to see her triplets (The Telegraph, Mar 27, 2011 "In an unusual case that must address difficult medical, ethical and legal questions... ...said Lisa Helfend-Meyer."
Severely disabled, is she still a mother? (The Jewish Chronicle, Nov 24, 2016 "Meyer ... said, "There is no case in point... ...Meyer points to the California Family Code, which says that the "public policy of this state" is...") - this is an opinion piece about the case in the "Let's Talk" section, and seems based on the 2010 Pioneer Press coverage, not only appearing to quote it, but also beginning by stating "An unprecedented, horrific legal dispute is coming up in LA." The 'unprecedented, horrific, legal dispute' phrase links to an LA Times copy of the 2010 Pioneer Press source: Severely disabled, is she still a mom?, so the 2016 date of this source is probably not accurate.

This WP:BOMBARDMENT seems to help show there were two flurries of coverage, in April 2010 and March 2011, and we do not have information about what happened after the temporary court order, and there also does not seem to be substantial commentary about the impact of the case nor Meyer's role. Based on the notability guideline, building a neutral and balanced article does not seem possible if the article will primarily be based on brief mentions in sensationalized news focused on other subjects. Beccaynr (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the current moment, I might agree with you. Although Meyer is quoted saying “we think that this is just the beginning, that their time with their mother will increase as they get older", I see no evidence that the court order is still in effect. The most recent article on this case was in 2016. However, if there is a similar case in the future, I imagine more details will emerge. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted above in the source review, the 2016 date of the "Let's Talk" opinion piece in The Jewish Chronicle appears to be inaccurate, based on the content of the article, which is based on the April 2010 LATimes/Pioneer Press reporting about the pretrial hearing. And as repeatedly noted, Meyer's promotion of her own importance or the importance of the case is not independent support for her notability. And our own opinions or speculation about what may happen in the future does not help support notability or encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the direction this conversation has gone, and after searching for sources long enough, I think this article should be deleted. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Dorn was scheduled to receive three-hour visits daily for five days each summer at her parents' residence in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Alongside the five-day visits, Abbie Dorn also was able to speak with her children by Skype for 30 minutes on the first Sunday of each month in an attempt to maintain a parental relationship with them. The ruling also required the father to display photographs of Abbie Dorn on a table or shelf in the children’s bedrooms. As I said, this ruling could play a role for future cases but missing the sources needed to support claims. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hesitant delete, though I would also support a rename/reframe. The coverage that I can see that has any substance has to do with the 2011 case involving visitation rights. There is a lot of such coverage, but it seems to be tangential to the lawyer and focused on the case. To me this suggests the case is notable, and the lawyer is not, as everything else is constructed of passing mentions. I don't think detailed coverage of a single case necessarily makes a lawyer notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of comedy films of the 2000s#2008. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remembering Phil[edit]

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

Despite the glowing praise in this article, this film seems to have received no attention from reliable sources at all, with no reviews at all on Rotten Tomatoes, no hits on Google News or Google Books, and the only review given here comes from a WordPress site... Fram (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep — As the creator of dozens of articles on Wikipedia, I created this article in good faith to celebrate a film that I enjoy and which I believe should meet notability for a film. One of the strange things about it is that DVD copies list critical praise and acclaim that is hard to find from third-party sources that meet our WP reliability standards, largely as a result of websites shuttering since the film's 2008 release. I did not mean to delete WP:PROD immediately by my objection, instead hoping to spend the next few days working on improving the article and trying to find more sources, as I have great respect for the work Fram in particular has done for our Wikipedia community. If not kept, I would humbly suggest Move To Draftspace, where perhaps I could continue to work on it. PickleG13 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Nothing on Rotten Tomatoes, or anywhere for reviews... This is the best I cold find [40]. Long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: What are those "awards" shown at the bottom of the poster? That might give a clue where to look. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a higher-resolution poster:
- Official selection, Downtown Film Festival, Los Angeles
- Official selection, Big Bear Lake Int'l Film Festival
- Official selection, Beverly Hills Hi-Def Film Fest
They just seem to be notices that the film was accepted, not awards. Also, none of these records can be found online. Don't add anything to notability. Dan • ✉ 16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that's disappointing. Thanks for confirming. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been seeking them out, but I can't find much of anything on those film festivals and what was in them in those years. It also appears that there is some kind of dispute going on with a distributor, leading to certain film websites being closed or pulled. It's disappointing to have difficulty finding reliable sources especially when I believe that there used to be, but thanks to others for checking as well! PickleG13 (talk)
I have been seeking out the film festivals on the poster using the Internet Archive, but results are challenging to find. Added some new links to the page to back this up, though it is definitely still a challenge to find reliable sources to verify critical acclaim that occured fifteen years ago. PickleG13 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: unless SIGCOV can be found before the AfD is closed. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – no RS to be found, see also my above reply to Oaktree b in re: hunt for the "awards" on the poster (none exist). Dan • ✉ 16:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted to add another thought in the argument for keeping the article, which I did not mention in my original Keep or Move to Draftspace argument. This is the high-profile nature of the cast, with the exception of the secondary lead as the only major role who doesn't have a Wikipedia page. We have standards of notability for books on the basis of their famed authors and films on the basis of their famed directors, and I do feel that this under-observed film deserves some for its highly notable cast. Still seeking better sources to back it up. PickleG13 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the cast is mildly notable and informations are verifiable, may I suggest a redirect to List of comedy films of the 2000s#2008 with 1 or 2 refs in footnotes? As the page’s creator requests, if the page is not kept, a Draftification, I suppose, that, out of courtesy, it could be allowed. But I really would favour a redirect. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't a bad idea. I would support this motion. PickleG13 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the film to List of comedy films of the 2000s#2008, with footnotes to pair with it. These films haven't yet been made into tables for easy sorting, but this could still be a good place for a redirect. I continue to support keeping the page, but this is a good compromise that I am prepared for. PickleG13 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Btw, you might want to remove the bold (or even remove the first keep to replace it with Comment or Clarification, and ’unbold’ the other two bold words) in your comment above, as this has been considered a double vote, when it was, I believe, a good faith comment on your original keep-vote. Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out! Yes, that was not my intention. PickleG13 (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that the suggestion of Redirecting this page title can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the creator of this page, I support this motion as an alternative to deletion. It seems like a solid use of a redirect, though I wish that this particular year had tables in place to display more information about it. PickleG13 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enlightenment (spiritual)[edit]

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK of original research based on WP:SYNTHESIS, covering multiple distinct definitions of the word "enlightenment" in English in a way that confuses both the concepts and the reader. Various culture's forms of religious experience should not be merged together in such an unsupported and syncretic way. Buddhist definitions of enlightenment are extremely clear about its attributes; while the Hindu concept of moksha is similar, it is not identical - the attributes of beings who have attained moksha do not include many of the qualities that Buddhists attribute to enlightenment. Buddhist sources such as Jigme Lingpa's Treasury of Precious Qualities go into detail about the distinct differences between enlightenment and liberation, an identity which is simply assumed in this article without a shred of support. The Christian meaning is different still. The article ignores sources which contrast rather than conflate the topics. This is an example of sloppy New Age thinking, conflating distinct topics which should be covered separately. If anything, an article contrasting the differences would be more honest than an article using synthesis in an attempt to pursue the New Age agenda that "it's all the same" or "all paths lead to the same place". They don't. Most of the sections are simply short summaries of their main articles that do not in any way connect the material to the word "enlightenment"; many don't even contain the word! Skyerise (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism, Hinduism, and Spirituality. CptViraj (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - agree it seems like WP:SYNTH, along with a big dose of personal opinion, to claim things are the same when the religions concerned say it isn't the same thing. The test for me is whether a person reading this page would know more after reading it than they did before. I don't think they would. JMWt (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – at first glance it does seem like a well-sourced article with a long history of contributions from many authors; however, upon further reading its WP:SYNTH qualities become apparent. I think it might have been nice to have an article covering why all these disparate concepts got translated to the same word "enlightenment" in English and how they got adopted by New Age practitioners in the West, but this isn't that – in fact, it's an example of that New Age thinking itself. It assumes a connection between tons of different religious concepts purely based on the fact that English explorers in India used the same word for ideas in the many religions they encountered. Deleting this article would not result in a loss of knowledge, as there are already detailed articles on kenshō, satori, kaivalya, moksha, mahavira, and kevala jnana which are all better than the poor treatment here. Dan • ✉ 15:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: a classic case of WP:SYNTH. An attempt to combine unrelated aspects from Buddhism and Epistemology based on a common use of a word. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep -- This article has extensive sourcing and a robust debate over the last 14 years. It meets GNG easily with extensive literature extant (much of it in the article already) on comparative cultural concepts of enlightenment. If you actually read the sources and the Talk discussions, the WP:SYNTH argument simply does not hold water. Did anyone even try WP:BEFORE? You can't swing a cat without hitting a book on spiritual enlightenment that crosses cultural or religious boundaries! If you have objections over specifics, WP:DINC. Cheers. Last1in (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to me that this is an argument for a merge to Religious syncretism or some other page. I'm sure you are correct that there are books pushing this line, it just seems to be giving undue weight to those off-the-wall ideas to give space with an easily searched term like this one, when the religions concerned say it isn't a thing. JMWt (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - but convincing arguments, though I don't think that the word "enlightenment" has such a clear-cut meaning in Buddhism; it may refer to both initial awakening or insight, and 'final' of 'full' liberation (if such a state really exists). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's only because you are mixing terms from Zen with terms from Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and considering them the same. The definitions of Enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism are detailed, and include lists of attributes of body, speech, and mind: an Enlightened being has specific bodily indications; there is a detailed list of negative emotional states that no longer arise; a being who is merely a Bodhisattva on the 8th bhumi can understand and speak all languages, for example. The article suggests that the attributes of enlightenment and the attributes of moksha are the same; but Mahayana Buddhists define one of the qualities of a Buddha is that they choose to come back to help others; one can attain moksha without developing this attitude. Liberated beings intend not to reincarnate ever again; Enlightened beings intend to manifest within samsara to aid other beings to enlightenment. This is only the most major difference. Vajrayana recognizes the state of "personal liberation" as distinct from "enlightenment", and Jigme Lingpa gives detailed descriptions of each and the differences between them. Skyerise (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It seems like with that logic, "spirituality" shouldn't have an article either? There is no official text for spirituality, but it's a concept that's been so widely used as to be an obvious topic of interest, where the nuances are broken down within the article. Same goes for spiritual enlightenment. Like it or not, syncretic belief systems are extremely widespread. This is a common term and a common concept. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you believe you can find sources for the claims made in the lead, then do so. That's the only thing that should be able to save this article, but so far no one has provided any. Skyerise (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rewrote the Christian part of the lead and added two sources. There is definitely lots of work to be done on the article. I still think deletion is unwarranted. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. That page does look like a Wikipedia:COATRACK. We have pages Enlightenment in Buddhism, Divine light and Divine illumination. We could also have something like Spiritual enlightenment, but I do not see sources which would treat this aa a single coherent subject. If there are such sources, that might be "keep", but I do not see them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep and refactor as more of a disambiguation page. We do our readers a disservice by leaving this a red link and making it harder to find the meaning of the term on Wikipedia, but we also do them a disservice if we present enlightenment as a single concept existing in multiple traditions rather than a single English term used for a number of more or less distinct concepts. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: the term "enlightenment" as it relates to Asian religions, and the one used in "Age of Enlightenment" are so different, some languages do not even use the same word for both. In Chinese, for example, one uses a character associated with awakening, while the other uses a character related to uncovering a truth. The fact that both ended up using the same word in English and in some other languages is a linguistic artifact, not a shared underlying concept. At best, this should be a disambiguation page - which we already have. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Wikipedia organizes articles by what things are, not by what they're called. This is essentially a list of usages of the word enlightenment, puffed up so that each definition reads somewhat encyclopedically at first brush. But just because one can staple together a few different usages doesn't mean that there is a coherent topic. To the extent that the juxtaposition insinuates that these are all the same thing, it's WP:SYNTH. The idea that all these varied enlightenments are the same, or aspects of the same, is itself a POV that must be treated as such. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: in Dharmic religions, "enlightenment" is generally used for the Jain Kevala jnana as well as the Buddhist bodhi. Hinduism part is a complete WP:SYNTH. In Enlightenment, other concepts links should be added. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classical Chinese Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability, should again be redirected Fram (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Fram (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify I think notability or lack thereof will become apparent once the OR is fixed. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Keep & Shorten or Draftify -~~ The article seems to be well written, the problem is there is too much unsourced information, we should either draftify it, or keep it & stubify it. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - as per previous and similar AfD, it seems entirely in keeping with en.wiki to include information about other WM projects. Other language Wikipedias are highly likely to have sources covering their existence in the local language. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There are more than 300 language versions (plus many wiktionaries, wikivoyages, wikiquotes, ...), many of them extremely obscure. Without actual evidence that these sources exist? The previous AfD was from 2008, our sourcing requirements are thankfully a lot less lax than back then, and apparently the sources haven't appeared in those 15 years... The page is about the worst kind of navel-gazing one can find on enwiki. There is no reason to exclude websites based on lack of presented coverage, except when they are WMF projects. No promo/free webdirectory for you, only promo/free webdirectory for us? Fram (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Welcome to Wikipedia. It's not a democracy folks. JMWt (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - How so? That's pretty well-established. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Each and every source that discusses the Classical Chinese Wikipedia is a primary source. Also, the article mainly consists of in-house affairs that fail to show the relevance of the Classical Chinese Wikipedia to the outside world, in line with the rationale of MOS:INUNIVERSE. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Draftify - every source is a primary source (even some user pages!), unless some better coverage can be found I'd say it fails WP:GNG. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a reasonable WP:ATD for a not independently notable edition of a notable project. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I specifically see no reason to draftity, in that nobody has argued convincingly for WP:NEXIST. Geschichte (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'll just mention that a lot of other language Wikipedias have been nominated at AFD over the past few months and many of those discussions have been closed with a decision to Redirect to the article suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect - I redact my !vote above & support redirecting the page to List of Wikipedias as a reasonable WP:ATD. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Not sure if it would possible to move these articles to the Wikipedia namespace? 94rain ^Talk 06:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: a project of this size is unlikely to be notable and no sources contributing to notability have been presented. The article consists of extremely quickly dated primary source statistics and niche inner community workings that only show existence. There is no analysis of impact of the Wikipedia on the Classical Chinese language. There is no consensus on en.wiki that we evaluate articles on Wikipedia outside normal notability guidelines (indeed, some worry Wikipedia-based articles are acts of navel-gazing). — Bilorv (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per Liz's relisting comment. Duckmather (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or draftify as the subject is notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex Bretow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCER or WP:GNG. Not able to find any sort of WP:SIGCOV. The creator of this article recently created Mammoth Pictures which was co-founded by the subject and whose notability is questionable too. Hitro talk 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Hitro talk 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete the draft has been already declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alex_Bretow. BoraVoro (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: I added some content and sources and reviewed existing sources. There is consistent coverage of the individual and his films, beginning with his student films being shown at Cannes two years in a row. This coverage is in both industry publications and newspapers. There are articles about him, not just film reviews, which I believe meets the requirement for sig coverage. In addition, he was selected by Forbes as an up-and-coming entrepreneur. Rublamb (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Just noting that this article was created by a sockpuppet of User:Abbasshaikh124 but I think enough work has been done on it by other editors that it isn't eligible for CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review additions made since the article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Can't really find any issues with article. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ustin Cerga[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough for a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources that I can find are IPN, a trivial mention, Sports.md 1, a basic Q&A with no independent analysis at all, and Sports.md 2, which also has no significant independent analysis of his responses to constitute significant coverage of Cerga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Moldova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Academic grading in the United States. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

XF (grade)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be limited to a few universities with the exact terminology differing between them. Unclear how this warrants its own article. Note that Academic grading in the United States does not mention XF at all; that article says X actually refers to something else.

Internationally, Withdraw[n] Fail use different denotation, but moving and expanding is probably not necessary. This concept can be easily incorporated into each country's respective grading article. Anarchyte (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete -- I would prefer an AtD of merging~~ Merge into Academic grading in the United States as बिनोद थारू has provided enough secondary sources to support inclusion in the primary article. However, I still cannot see independent notability to keep a separate article. , but the article only has primary sources. Without RS, there is nothing here to merge. If anyone can find even one secondary source on this grade (I couldn't), I'll switch my !vote immediately. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Academic grading in the United States: independent, non-primary sources are required to establish notability, but for adding a line in a list on an existing article, the primary sources we have suffice. The grade itself isn't notable, but it's part of a notable system. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/kansas-community-college-cracks-down-on-cheaters-with-new-xf-grade-signifying-dishonesty/

The article states: "Barton County Community College has instituted a new honor system that would allow professors who catch a student cheating to be able to mar :the student’s transcript with a grade that indicates academic dishonesty.

Administrators and faculty members at the Kansas college decided on the policy in the wake of a string of cheating incidents that started last year. Professors can :now assign a grade of “XF” to students who are caught plagiarizing, cheating on a test, or in other ways violating the college’s academic-integrity policy."

https://books.google.com/books?id=2FceCwAAQBAJ, page 852.

The book states: "Students holding an XF grade will automatically be banned from representing the university, running for student organizations, or receiving university funds. XF grades can however be replaced with an ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=f-GWBQAAQBAJ, page 73.

The book states: "XF grade which states that the student failed a class specifically because of Academic Dishonesty”. In order to act ... education about the institution policy, the guideline and action to be taken so that all teachers deal with the ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=MqwrAQAAMAAJ, page 20.

The book states: "school is also considering adopting a grade of XF to indicate failure due to cheating ( Zernike , 2002 ) . Other schools , like the University of Maryland and Trinity College in Hartford , are requiring that their students sign an honor"

https://books.google.com/books?id=JZGgJSEQe, page 133.

The book states: "Development of a revised academic integrity policy, which includes the adoption of an XF grade (designed to distinguish failure resulting from violation of the ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=URYL1BfAZRQC, page 427.

The book states: "Under Maryland's system, cheaters are not expelled but receive a special “XF” grade for a class if they are caught cheating. The grade, which means the student failed the course due to academic dishonesty ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=-1B4AgAAQBAJ.

The book states: "... University of Maryland's policy of assigning a grade of “XF” in the course, the “X” indicating that the failure was due to academic dishonesty, which then becomes part of the student's permanent record. As Pavela (1997a) noted, [the “XF” ..."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow XF to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review the sources proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Should eager to see a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Academic grading in the United States - I don't buy the argument that sources that explain that XF is a grade assigned for academic dishonesty, however many times it is said, provide significant coverage to write something encyclopaedic about the grade. It is not irrelevant, but there is not significant non trivial coverage here to write an encylopaedic article on the grade code itself. Academic dishonesty is a subject and so, it seems, is Academic grading in the United States. This information belongs in the latter, but should not be spun out from there. It might be worth a sentence in the former too. Thus merge is the right WP:ATD here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virtual reality. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VR privacy concerns[edit]

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

I can not find any reliable sources giving significant coverage of this. Any valid information is in the article for Virtual reality or can easily fit there. Dream Focus 18:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Virtual reality. I don't think it merits more than a section in the Virtual reality article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect for now to Virtual reality. I was able to access most of the sources in the article, and they do not seem to mention virtual reality, as such, I am concerned about WP:OR. It seems very likely that the topic is notable (super quick dump: [41][42][43][44]). If it can be verified that what's here is not OR, and is just poorly referenced, keep is fine. —siro χ o 19:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of those are the same. They mention that information can be gotten by monitoring someone's eye and hand motion. This is already mentioned at Virtual_reality#Privacy. Dream Focus 11:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Virtual reality#Privacy -- The parent article could use a little more beef, but there is no GNG (yet) for this topic as a standalone article. It lacks WP:SIGCOV completely, especially if you attempt to find sources specific to the security/privacy vis-à-vis VR in general. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. Don't oppose redirect, though. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People Like Us (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band that had some small-scale success with one song: "Deliverance". Billboard magazine includes the song in an advertisement in November 1986,[45] but the song is never mentioned again in Billboard. It did not chart in the US or UK. There is no in-depth biography of the band. The song "Deliverance" appears on some compilation albums, for instance Passion Records 12" Collection in 1995 and Gay Classics, Vol. 11: Hangin' Out in 1996. I could not find anyone writing about the song or the group to give details or context. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - haven't been able to find any RS evidence of notability.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Unsourced, non-notable article fails WP:NBAND. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV regarding the band. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. If band isn't notable, why so many contextual "what links here" mentions? Suitskvarts (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results of the 1997 Canadian federal election[edit]

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

These are actually the candidates and results for the 2000 federal election. The page needs to be deleted and redone from scratch. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. It looks like somebody tried to get the 1997 election done by copy-pasting 2000 and then starting to make manual changes to it, but then never finished the job — so as it stands right now, this is just an entirely inaccurate article. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if somebody wants to actually redo it properly, but wrong information is actually worse than no article at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom unless it's HEYed - this is a TNT nom, there's no reason this can't be a perfectly valid article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timișoara Award for European Values[edit]

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

Once one strips away the thick clumps of puffery, this seems like much ado about nothing: a medal handed out by a city hall. Maybe in time it will establish itself, but as of now this reads more like a press release than a reflection of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Europe. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON. The award hasn't even been given yet for the first time and we already have an article on it. Agree with nominator that it might become notable in the future. I'd recommend the article's writer to save it up in their sandbox or somewhere else and wait to see if that is the case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify/Userfy -- Sources right now are all WP:PRIMARY or WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I agree with Super Dromaeosaurus that it may well become notable after it is awarded and discussed in wider, secondary WP:SIGCOV with some WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Also, as noted in the nomination, the article right now is filled with WP:PEACOCKs and will need to be edited extensively before it is ready for mainspace. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the constructive feedback, which I will be happy to implement in a future version and can well understand. I would like to point out that the nominator's political motive is obvious, as he identifies himself as a supporter of the unification of Romania and Moldova and his language is anything but neutral. BeneEfimero (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as puff-piece. Dahn (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close with no prejudice against speedy renomination‎. Due to confusion over the article's topic being altered and changed back during the AFD, this discussion is unlikely to achieve something resembling consensus. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LimeLife[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a very curious article. It has been nominated twice and failed twice, mainly due to sources from multiple media outlets from before 2010 (see previous noms). Further, due to the browser redirecting scheme I suspect they were born as paid articles. However, they all mention LimeLife as a mobile phone company. Sometime between now and then LimeLife became a (alleged MLM) cosmetics company. Whether that LimeLife is the same as this LimeLife remains a mystery. Since the new LimeLife fails GNG I am unable to find independent sources referencing it as a cosmetics company. In any case, it is safe to assume the old LimeLife is long dead. I am curious to see where this AfD will go. RetroCosmos (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like some time in 2021 Limelife's history was rewritten from its origins as a mobile phone company to the brainchild of a cosmetics company Alcone which notably does not have its own Wikipedia article. RetroCosmos (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author of this change is 8964BonCat (talk · contribs) that appears to be a single purpose account whose only actions are the editing of that article on the 30th of December 2021. On 21 December 2023, AnnaCbyAlcone (talk · contribs) made her sole edit and added that LimeLife had rebranded to "LimeLife by Alcone". RetroCosmos (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna (as if the username was not clear enough about the connection) is a "digital coordinator" for the company; after this comment was made, they said as much on the article's talk page and in a message on the help desk. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article was previously about an American privately held digital media company based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Theroadislong (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split this mess into two separate articles: LimeLife (digital media company) and LimeLife (cosmetics company). Then we can discuss the merits of retaining one or both of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Revert the hijacked article back to Special:Permalink/058694903, the Dec 2021 version of the women-oriented digital media company. Hijacking an article should not result in the deletion of the original article. Standards have changed since the article was kept at AfD in 2012, so it can be renominated for deletion if desired. Hijacking an article is not acceptable on Wikipedia so there is no need to even consider the acceptability of the current contents. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: The linked oldid goes to 2006 edit of an archive of the talk page for Chess containing messages from 2004 to 2006. Is the oldid you pasted missing one or more characters? - Purplewowies (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment: Looking at the page history, it looks like StarryGrandma meant Special:PermaLink/1058694903. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Revert. Do it now. hijacking is unacceptable. Worry about the deletion(s) later. -Arch dude (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comment Per suggestions by StarryGrandma (talk · contribs) and Arch dude (talk · contribs) I have reverted to a prior version. The ones suggested by StarryGrandma and ayakanaa (talk · contribs) both still listed the prior mobile phone company as an MLM; I was unable to find information supporting this, so I have removed it from the new version. Since it looks like this is the direction the AfD will go, I question the coverage that led to the Keep consensus from the first AfD WP:SIRS. If anyone disagrees with the MLM removal or the reversion they are free to revert.
- San Jose Mercury News: Dead link. I do not assume this was an acceptable source for reasons that will later become apparent.
- Washington Post: The link literally says "paidContent". I reject this as Independent Coverage.
- BBC News: The article was not primarily about LimeLife. I would place this article as somewhere between a passing mention and a dedicated article.
- It is difficult to find more sources in the news due to time elapsed and the creation of a new LimeLife that has taken over search results. Someone has suggested that the reference list established notability. I address those now
- Forbes: Not Independent Coverage WP:FORBESCON
- San Francisco Business Times: I accept this as Independent Coverage.
- Red Herring: Top100 list - Trivial Coverage
- Fashion News: "PR Newswire" - I reject this as Independent.
Procedural Suggestion: close this AfD. It was opened as an AfD on the contents after the article was hijacked, but that content was effectively deleted by reversion. Discussion on the restored old article should be part of a new AfD. -Arch dude (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confused. The article was totally rewritten (the hijacking was reverted) while this AfD was in progress. It's unclear which version/subject we're invited to !vote on. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ per WP:CSD#G5 (creation by sockpuppet of blocked user) (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LNER Class A3 2506 Salmon Trout[edit]

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

Non-notable. The locomotive was not preserved and has no claim to notability in the article. This was created by a community-banned editor and is also eligible for deletion on that basis, see [46]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3#Preservation. Regardless of notability, this is a short article and LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 can use the additional information. In other words, the AfDd article is an unjustified SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norm Glockson[edit]

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

Despite playing in Major League Baseball and the National Football League, this subject appears to not meet the WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, American football, Baseball, and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I don't understand how you were unable to find coverage of Glockson - a two-sport top-level professional athlete - Newspapers.com has extensive coverage of him, e.g. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] e t c. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep' per Newspapers.com citations BeanieFan11 has shown and that I can see by searching the database. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finnish School of Watchmaking[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to a blog post and a passing mention in the New York Times. WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Finland. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted in the revision history, the article has been improved after the first deletion nomination by @SailingInABathTub: with additional sourcing from reliable sources (two NYtimes articles), replacing a previously used blog post source. Diletantique (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. One can find many articles about the school in Finnish newspapers and magazines. (e.g. Yle.fi, hs.fi, Tekniikka & Talous, most of which are unfortunately behind the paywall) I am not familiar with WP:NCORP, so I let others decide whether these are enough to pass the test. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage by e.g. Yle and Helsingin Sanomat, which are both reliable: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], etc. The National Library of Finland's newspaper archive (online access highly limited for non-researchers) also has a ton of hits, e.g. Länsiväylä 12.2.2022 (two-thirds of a spread) and 20.11.2021 (half page), Kauppalehti 23.4.2020 (two pages), Savon Sanomat 28.2.2020 (two-thirds spread), Helsingin Uutiset 12.2.2020 (third of a page), etc. Also a whole bunch of historical hits, e.g. both Uusi Suomi and Etelä-Suomen Sanomat in December 1959, Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 7.11.1945, etc. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Ljleppan. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BlueMSX[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. A WP:BEFORE search gives me a book that copies the article from the French Wikipedia on GBooks and forum posts, which are unreliable. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak as per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) CptViraj (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Aravindan Selvaraj[edit]

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

not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Reason/s: no sources) Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Beit Lahia[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Four unrelated list items based on social media posts. Sources do not mention a "Battle of Beit Lahia", most reference general events north of the area. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Social media post	1. @ytirawi (4 November 2023). "According to my source in North Gaza, it appears that Israeli ground forces are actively operating in North West Beit Lahia. They are launching heavy airstrikes on Masnhyya street as a mean of pressure" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
Social media post	2. ^ @ytirawi (20 November 2023). "Israeli occupation forces shoot directly at a school just beside the Indonesian Hospital" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
Does not mention anything called "Battle of Beit Lahia"	3. ^ Gritten, David (21 November 2023). "Israeli tanks surround north Gaza's Indonesian Hospital". BBC. Retrieved 20 December 2023.
Social media post	4. ^ https://t.me/sarayaps/16713
Social media post	5. ^ @ytirawi (24 November 2023). "During the night, Israeli occupation forces raided the Indonesian Hospital in Jabalia Refugee Camp. A woman was killed, 3 individuals were injured, and 3 others were abducted to an unknown destination" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
Social media post	6. ^ "Beit Lahia News Network" . Telegram . Retrieved 21 December 2023 .
Social media post, dead link	7. ^ “Martyr Izz al-Din al-Qassam “Reserve” Brigades". Telegram. Retrieved 21 December 2023.

BEFORE showed nothing about a "Battle of Beit Lahia". No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 13:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, the only valid sources offered fail to indicate that any distinct 'battle' took place. Any incidents reported were part of wider military activity, and could be reported, with the necessary context, in articles covering that activity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. CptViraj (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I will remove all the social media posts and replace with ISW sources which confirm the battle in Beit Lahia. -UtoD 15:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source you link there makes no assertion that there was any 'battle of Beit Lahia' distinct from the broader conflict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The whole article seems to be WP:GNG-ing Beit Lahia fighting as separate from the rest of northern Gaza, which no source corroborates. Jebiguess (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Timothy, AndyTheGrump, and Jebiguess; perhaps merge information into Siege of Gaza City if it is not already there. I will add that a Google search for the exact string "battle of Beit Lahia" only returned pages directly related to this Wikipedia article, like List of engagements during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war and some person's edit history, in addition to an article describing some events in 2004 as such, and a work of historical fiction. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, there's literally nothing that happened in Beit Lahia separate from the rest of the Siege of Gaza City. Nothing in this article that can be merged elsewhere either. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 16:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip -- Not every event in this conflict is independently notable. This portion of the invasion has zero WP:SECONDARY analysis, and it is not named as a 'battle' even in primary sources. It cannot pass WP:GNG, much less WP:NEVENT. To be ready for mainspace, it would need strong secondary sources (plural) with WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:GEOSCOPE, none of which are likely. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as TNT, OR and POV. gidonb (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: While we are discussing this page, I wanted to ask whether a similar AfD would be appropriate for Battle of Beit Hanoun using many of the same arguments. Much like "Battle of Beit Lahia," the precise term "Battle of Beit Hanoun" does not exist in RS, including the page's own references, so it is not clear if it passes WP:GNG. (Feel free to strike this comment if it's not the appropriate place for it) SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stamped (application)[edit]

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

Not notable, the only coverage is that Yahoo bought it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SmartCam[edit]

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

This article is about this random project, not notable. Was PROD'ed before, but some random IP just deleted PROD without providing any reason. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, agree with the PROD from 15 years ago that this was unremarkable software, and the passage of time only reaffirms that view that this is entirely non notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Orphaned apart from disamb. No good place to redirect. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selfie Type[edit]

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

It was introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show 2020 and is expected to be launched in 2020. Never launched. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: coverage by BBC and others establishes notability. Whether it was launched or not is irrelevant. We have many articles for products and projects that never came to fruition, and there's no policy to remove such articles. WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply, as this isn't a prediction, it's a description of a past event or idea, which still exists as a notable idea. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Merge into Virtual keyboard - changed per discussion below with nom. More than enough sources to support this as a section in the merge target. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OwenX, I should have clarified Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL, I meant that it is very unlikely that there will be more info about this particular product from Samsung in the near future, I just mentioned crystal ball because it is a nice idea to have "an invisible keyboard", but since this particular product didn't launch, we can't predict that there will be another product implementing this idea, thus I think it shouldn't have a standalone article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, coverage by BBC and others establishes notability. Since the only coverage is about announcement, I believe it is not enough for notability: a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable per WP:NSOFT. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your point, and agree that such a burst of coverage does not automatically establish notability, and you are correct that we are unlikely to get additional sources about this concept. My claim is that when you take BBC along with all the other sources, this concept of a product marginally passes our usual threshold of notability.

That said, in an effort to drive to a consensus here, how would you feel about merging this article to Virtual keyboard? We certainly have more than enough sources here for a section in the target page. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OwenX, I think it's a good idea. I noticed that there is a section "Optical virtual keyboard" which is exactly what Selfie Type was about. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. I changed my !vote above. If you revise the nomination, we can speedy close this AfD as withdrawn and carry out the merge as agreed. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PlinkArt[edit]

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

The only coverage by independent sources is that Google acquired it, nothing more. Not sure it is sufficient to merit a standalone article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Many, many high-quality sources, including Telegraph, Reuters, Financial Times, The Guardian, LA Times, Forbes, Fast Company, CNET, and TechCrunch, but as the nom points out, they are all about the acquisition. I am unable to find any coverage before or after the acquisition, so this fails WP:SUSTAINED. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Don't see any good place to redirect. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect‎ to Hotline Miami. ✗plicit 12:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennaton Games[edit]

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

I hate to nominate the article for deletion, but after wanting to expand this article several times and basically examining most, if not all sources out there for Dennaton, all of the available ones are just development info for Hotline Miami. In the current state of the article, it's also completely lacking third party sources at all to begin with. So, unfortunately, unless I'm proven wrong (which I'd love to be here), Dennaton Games isn't a studio that is independently notable from their own works. NegativeMP1 09:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. NegativeMP1 09:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Simply not independently notable from the two games they've made. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Dennaton Games is merely the collective name for two otherwise independent developers. I would argue that, other than "they got together" and "they made Hotline Miami", there is very little actual information on the duo as a duo. Perhaps there is sufficient sourcing for either of the two independently, but Dennaton Games fails WP:NCORP. IceWelder [✉] 11:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Hotline Miami, mostly notable for making that game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and redirect to Hotline Miami. Outside of this game, there is no significant information about the company itself. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 10:35, December 25, 2023 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per TWOrantula. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Amateur Radio Union. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Telsiz ve Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti[edit]

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

Notability not established, sourced to a membership list and the orgs website. Skyerise (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, and Turkey. CptViraj (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I

Disagree based on the IARU Arceonix (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Withdraw nomination~~. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to International Amateur Radio Union. I agree that this is not notable and clearly does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. There is no significant in-depth coverage, and the current sources are not independent. I can't really see any reason why the article on IARU should justify that we have this entry, which verges on WP:ORGSIG. Although the nominator appears to have withdrawn the nomination after the very first opposing vote, I will have to disagree on this one. Aintabli (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to International Amateur Radio Union per Aintabli. I've struck my withdrawal, as this seems a better solution. Skyerise (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Litblog[edit]

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

Full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No evidence for notability separate from the blog article. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Internet. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - not even an unsourced claim to notability. Ten years with a "does not cite any sources" tag is enough. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: This could be a decent article if someone would make the effort to add some inline citations. The two articles from the Guardian and the Village Voice piece (all in the "external links" section) should be enough to establish notability. I agree that the article is full of OR and needs to be cut down quite a bit, but with some effort there could be a reasonable article here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect Does not cite any sources. The two articles mentioned talk about it only a bit and at best this is right for a redirect, if someone can name a logical direction. Archrogue (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I thought about draftifying, but articles should be based on sources, not looking for sources to a text already written by someone else - no one will do that either. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 Hong Kong Women's Premier League[edit]

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

Delete. This is not a top-class tournament and the article fails WP:GNG. A couple of sentences could perhaps be merged into Cricket in Hong Kong. Batagur baska (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Hong Kong. Batagur baska (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Events. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per Batagur baska, just isn't notable. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing any coverage on the competition in a search that would qualify it for GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Uzbek Women's Football Championship. Svartner (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ætherverse[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV, obscure DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – 2004 game with practically no active sources. Svartner (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article suggests this is notable (no reviews, no awards). My BEFORE found nothing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Porta-bote[edit]

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

Cites no sources, reads like an advertisement for the company that makes it DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Sports. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Weak keep, this review in a NZ magazine [58] and some discussion in Australia [59] Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Subject passes the WP:GNG with the sources provided in this discussion. Some promotional language stands to be removed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. User:Let'srun 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. If the article weren't so ancient, I'd suggest draftifying. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aurecon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connell Wagner[edit]

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

This is a very borderline case for WP:NCORP but since it's defunct and Aurecon already exists, this page doesn't seem necessary. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Australia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Aurecon. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Aurecon: Primary notability lies elsewhere. Not enough content to bother with a merge. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States invasion of Panama#U.S. rationale. I note RTH's concerns about merging, and if anyone wants to rescue the content from behind the redirect and improve it by adding sources to then merge, they are welcome to do so. Daniel (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Operation Sand Flea[edit]

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

Notability highly questionable, stub with no unique substantial content. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Panama, and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with United_States_invasion_of_Panama. killer bee  08:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with United_States_invasion_of_Panama. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 05:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to United States invasion of Panama#U.S. rationale, where this is mentioned. I say this, instead of arguing for a merge, out of a concern regarding the quality of this article's content; much appears uncited or cited to an unreliable source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with the United States invasion of Panama article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 00:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red Light Management[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. 1, 2 are primary sources, 3, 5, 6 are routine coverage, and 4 is an interview. Unable to find any higher quality sources. Fermiboson (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Fermiboson (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsure but likely keep so for now sharing some sources I found; the article currently isn't great but it was also only 71 minutes old when nominated for AFD. There's a lot of routine coverage in reliable sources, way more than is normal for corp articles that are deleted in my experience. What was source 4 (more sources since added) ("Red alert") is not solely an interview; since this nom someone else already added "How Red Light Management is breaking new acts during the pandemic". www.musicweek.com. Retrieved 2023-12-07., which says there's additional feature coverage behind a paywall (which I haven't found that particular source yet). In Virginia newspapers there's some additional coverage of them working on a new venue, one example Roanoke council will hear report Monday on ideas for amphitheater. There's some real, but not huge, coverage of Red Light in a couple of books abut DMB's Dave Matthews Band : music for the people, The Dave Matthews Band : step into the light, and Dave Matthews Band FAQ (which seems to be from a somewhat real publisher). There's also some that are, as far as I can tell, only behind paywalls: RED ALL OVER. another part interview, part feature, excerpt "Red Light is one of the biggest management companies in the world, with a UK office that’s grown rapidly since opening in 2012. But how can such an expansive business stay true to its independent and artist-friendly roots? And what does its future in Europe hold?" BRIGHT LIGHTS., I think the match to How Red Light above, interviews with multiple staff members of Red Light (mentioned to show availability of sources to expand article not just for notability); Red alert: How Red Light’s expanding UK operation is taking over the charts; Light up: Red Light expands with 'powerhouse' dance duo the duo is Sigma and it also includes a mini article titled "Red Light redemption: Game on for management firm". Skynxnex (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Draftify, although I definitely think this article needs to enter the draftspace for incubation until it's really ready to be published. As noted by Skynxnex, there are many reliable sources covering the activities of Red Light Management; for the time being, I've added a Billboard article (current source 11) to go with the multiple existing citations from MusicWeek. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The issue currently seems to be that the article's creator, Punk Rock London, has a potential COI and a brief history ([60], [61]) of publishing low-quality music industry articles into the mainspace instead of developing them as drafts. Tangentially related, there's an IP address that they tend to work closely with when it comes to these things. I'd assume good faith that this is just a new editor with specific interests for now, but I just wanted my concern voiced. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I'm not sure if drafting is really useful. Only a bit more cleanup of the promotional tone will leave that aspect fine and if this discussion decides this subject is WP:N then mainspace is most useful for other editors improving the article. I agree that the creator probably should stop creating articles directly in the mainspace for now and only use AFC for future creations for the foreseeable future. Skynxnex (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  That's a good point about other editors being able to improve the article more easily if it's left in the mainspace. Since I think it is WP:N, I'm changing my vote. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I would like to defend myself against the allegations made by AlexTheAwkward as of course that i have specific interests and that’s music business and also I’m new and I’m learning and when I found out that the largest management company in the music industry didn’t have a Wikipedia page i wanted to contribute as a company as important as Red Light Management should definitely have a page so I advise you to focus on improving the page instead of making claims about me unrelated to this article, I don’t have any connections to this company but if a company as big as this one doesn’t have a Wikipedia page and there’s many other companies smaller and with less sources that have it, It will definitely teach us about the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia, Please feel free to report [User:AlexTheAwkward|AlexTheAwkward]] if keep making allegations about me instead of contributing to the article, Many thanks. Punk Rock London (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any specific allegations made by AlexTheAwkward other than a "potential" which seems reasonable based on your talk page (and Alex has worked on improving the article and !voted keep?). Punk Rock London, you should probably WP:AGF and WP:STRIKE the mention of reporting Alex and be mindful of the context of the useful feedback you've gotten on your talk page.

And for good or bad, Wikipedia isn't based on "importance" or "size" but Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I agree it seems likely that Red Light Management does probably meet WP:NCORP. I trust we can all work on improving the article if the consensus here is to keep. Skynxnex (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This company has enough media coverage in order to have an article also we are talking about the latest independent music management company in the world with enough sources to justify it. 06:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:432F:DDAB:ECEF:38E3:DBD3:FCEB (talk) — 2A04:4A43:432F:DDAB:ECEF:38E3:DBD3:FCEB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The company definitely has a great impact on music industry. The article needs some improvements and expansion. killer bee  08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: there not been clear justification that no source brought forward validate CORP. Conversely, it is not clear which set of sources fulfills CORP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nom comment In all honesty, I am not that familiar with the standard of reliability for music sources. However, to me it seems that all the sources yet brought for inclusion are largely interviews, or otherwise non-independent sources. And while I don't wish to say that there has been an attempt to promote the company by the company, I would not be surprised if this turns out to be the case, to put it that way. Of the sources currently in the article, everything is primary source or a passing mention/routine coverage except for the two musicweek.com sources. Of these, the second (i.e. 4 in the nom statement) is an interview disguised as a feature, as you will see quotes from company personalities interspersed literally every other sentence. The first appears to be of a similar nature, though the quote-to-prose ratio is slightly less egregious (I mean the entire bloody article starts out with Red Light Management's managing director... has told us.) If anyone has any previous RS discussions on musicweek, I think that would be quite useful in orienting the discussion. Fermiboson (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While this might seem like an obvious Keep, there are valid objections to some of the sources used and several editors participating here are relatively inexperienced at evaluating articles in AFD discussion. I'd like to know where User:Skynxnex comes down and hear from some veteran AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep (maybe weak?) I think for me. I agree it's not a 100% clear NCORP pass with the exact coverage I've found. Music Week seems to be seen as generally reliable trade publication (search results in the RS noticeboard). Most business coverage outside of the large will have quotes/interviews from the business itself and so the question is if the resultant. So both the trade status and the "feature"ness of the Music Week pieces bring Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories[3] from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. from WP:NCORP into play (the ref note is A feature story is usually a longer article where the writer has researched and interviewed to tell a factual story about a person, place, event, idea, or issue. Features are not opinion-driven and are more in-depth than traditional news stories..
A new-to-me article from Music Week covering Red Light Management: <https://www.musicweek.com/management/read/red-light-x-atlantic-inside-the-management-firm-s-new-songwriting-camp-for-uk-hitmakers/087060>: Red Light Management has launched its songwriting camp series with an inaugural week-long event for Atlantic artists at RAK Studios in London., but still a bit borderline. And <https://www.musicweek.com/management/read/if-you-re-not-thinking-globally-you-re-going-to-miss-out-red-light-management-s-james-sandom-talks-strategy/069409> is mostly interviewed but shows they did several pieces on them in 2017, as well. To step out of pure policy-based reasons arguments, there is a huge amount of coverage of artists getting deals with and leaving Red Light, along with lots of coverage of employees joining and departing. Looking in that vein, there is <https://www.billboard.com/pro/mary-hilliard-harrington-red-light-management/> which really seems about as much about Red Light as Hilliard: Red Light Management is beefing up its already significant Nashville presence with the hiring of Mary Hilliard Harrington in a senior management capacity. ... The new team will be based out of the office Red Light recently moved into in the Gulch neighborhood of Nashville. Harrington brings with her two staffers from her previous management firm and two new hires. Stephanie Johnson, who handles day-to-day management for Bentley, and Kevin Grace, who works on the digital and creative content side for all of Harrington’s clients.... And <https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/tim-mcgraw-signs-red-light-83138/> in 2009 has a short but solid info about of Red Light: Based in Charlottesville, Va., Red Light Management was founded by Capshaw in 1991 at the beginning of his 18-year role as the personal manager of Dave Matthews Band. The company has grown into one of the most active artist management companies in the industry. Also for McGraw's signing, and this article in Billboard had more than I realized (looks like ~15-20 sentences about Red Light, still a mix of reporting, quotes from Capshaw, and McGraw) so I hadn't included it before: [62]/[63] "Touring over a new leaf: with a new managers and ambitious concert plans, Tim McGraw isn't resting on his laurels": When word came last April that McGraw signed with Red Light Management, many on Music Row were taken by surprise. Capshaw, a Charlottesville, Va.-based entrepreneur with a wide-ranging portfolio—including real estate and a brewery—is perhaps best-known as manager of Dave Matthews Band, founder of direct-to-fan pioneer MusicToday (now part of Live Nation) and co-founder of ATO Records. Red Light's roster is very deep and diverse, but McGraw is the first established mainstream country star to enter the fold. as a snippet.
I don't really like WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments but compared the majority of company articles we have (let alone comparable companies) this one has a much better claim to notability. (And the raw number of times a person quoted is ID'd as working there or a photo of a musician is via courtesy them makes finding more in-depth sources harder.) So, to justify my weak keep, I think the coverage of them working on the new music venue in Virginia, the Music Week features (both the multiple articles issue in 2023 as well as the full page in 2019 about signing Sigma + Red Light's attempts at getting into gaming), and coverage of them in the context of BMB's founding, and coverage of hiring/signing together meets NCORP. I think really going through all the sources, esp if someone had access to the Billboard Pro content as well, this would be a solid keep given its history. (Apologies for the length, I'm not sure why I've spent this much time on this and really need to pause but hopefully will be able to incorporate some of this into the now-cut down article if kept.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grove Park Business and Enterprise College[edit]

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

I nominate delete as this is a not notable/local secondary school. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge into Oasis Academy Mayfield, or keep per WP:RECENT/WP:NTEMP. Although there aren't many sources relating to it under this final name, there are many more that relate to its previous name (Weston Park Boys' School) - enough to easily satisfy WP:GNG. Perhaps the article should be renamed to that more common name. Waggers TALK 10:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or Merge to Oasis Academy Mayfield per Waggers. No good rationale given for deletion. Purely opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. It looks as though the Grove Park name was short-lived, but I haven't found a source dating the change of name from Weston Park. This about the school's football team winning the national English schools under-16 football trophy uses the Weston Park name in 2005.[64] The article states Grove Park was closed in 2008. Oasis Academy I believe has been built on the Weston Park/Grove Park site so could in essence be seen as a continuing educational institution under a different name, management and new buildings, but against this is that it's a merger of two schools. Notes on the predecessor schools in the Oasis Academy Mayfield history section would help to explain how the current academy came into being. If kept the article should probably be retitled "Weston Park Boys' Secondary School". The National Archives just refers to the Weston Park name.[65]. Worth reading this for background.[66]. Rupples (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Rename to Weston Park Boys' School as the common name over the life span of this school. gidonb (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I would agree with renaming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure)

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

15:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dolores Cannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~No indication of notability.~~

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

05:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:

Is about an American author that has written 17 books.

Is about an American hypnotherapist. a profession that in many American states does not required licensing for its practice.

Is about one of the most well know past life regression therapist in the 20th century.

I also consider that the other 3 articles about Dolores Cannon in the Dutch Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia should be preserved--Zchemic (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Paranormal, Arkansas, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of those things mean somebody is wikinotable. To be notable, they must have several independent sources about them, as per WP:SIGCOV. I cannot find any reliable, independent sources about her. If I do find them, then my nomination will be void and I should have to withdraw it.

As for the other languages that you mentioned, English Wikpedia has no influence or bearing on those, other than that the English Wikipedia is one of the oldest and most developed Wikipedia communities, so is often considered as a model.

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

13:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I found mentions of Dolores Cannon, the author, hypnotherapist, past life regressionist, and ufologist in these mainstream sources:

https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/media/dolores-cannon-10471/ ("The CALS Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a project of the Central Arkansas Library System (CALS) in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is the only state encyclopedia in the country to be produced by a library system.")

The article just needs a more citations and improvement flag at top from WP:CLEANUPTAG. 5Q5|^✉ 15:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I hadnt found those for some readon. I retract my nomination

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

15:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katie Fang[edit]

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

Non-notable. Sources are primary Cossyno (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Film, and Canada. Cossyno (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Internet, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources found. Doesn't qualify Wikipedia:NBLP. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 05:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO Graywalls (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No secondary coverage whatsoever. Banks Irk (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Lead and portions of her Career strikes me as strangely promotional as though the article is an extension of her TikTok page. RetroCosmos (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per above; probably could even be speedy deleted

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@AriTheHorse:, just a note, before suggesting speedy, it is worth remembering that articles deleted as CSD are susceptible to WP:REFUND claim by other users, including subject involved public relations editor whereas a full stop AfD are resistant to re-creation as it receives protection through G4 CSD to enforce AfD. Graywalls (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G.B.S.S. School No.1, Shakti Nagar[edit]

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

Sources are all almost primary and most of the ones that aren't are dead. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Per nom, this school article fails WP:GNG and is written like an advertisement. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SJK(T) St. Teresa Convent[edit]

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

Sourcing/notability issues not addressed nine years after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (T) St. Teresa Convent * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. 9 years since its (first) nomination for deletion, almost nothing has been improved and I couldn't find any reliable sources about this school. Clearly fails WP:GNG. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Looks like another school PR case. The page creator made 1 (!) edit at all. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CIVETS[edit]

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

The article is one of many articles for acronym-groupings of countries that happened in the 2010–2012 period as a result of the popularity of the BRIC term. However, the term CIVETS has not had sustained reliable coverage. In other words, it was a concept that was floated, received some minor coverage at one point in time, and has not had any coverage since. It is not notable. Thenightaway (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Egypt, South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Not getting tons of media coverage these days, but hasn't gone away:

M. Petrović-Ranđelović, P. Mitić, A. Zdravković, D. Cvetanović, & S. Cvetanović, "FDI and Institutions in BRIC and CIVETS Countries: An Empirical Investigation", Economies 2022, 10(4), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10040077
P. Kechagia & T. Metaxas, "Economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from CIVETS countries", Applied Economics 2019, 52(16), 1806-1815, DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2019.1679343
S. Bentes, "Is gold a safe haven for the CIVETS countries under extremely adverse market conditions? Some new evidence from the MF-DCCA analysis", Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 2023, 623, 128898, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2023.128898
A. Castillo Perdomoa, E. E. Tejada Manriqueb, L. E. García Núñezc, A. Quispe Mamanid, & J. Calizaya-Lópeze, "Clustering of universities from CIVETS countries in the Top 20 of the Web of Universities Ranking", Journal of Positive Psychology & Wellbeing 2022, 6(2), 849-858, https://journalppw.com/index.php/jppw/article/view/7181/5048
M. M. Rahman, "The effect of taxation on sustainable development goals: evidence from emerging countries." Heliyon, 2022 8(9), https://10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10512

"Abstract: The purpose of the study is to examine the effects of the corporate tax rate on sustainable development in the BRIC and CIVETS countries. ..."

Jahaza (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are not esteemed academic publications. Thenightaway (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment if the term was notable at one time, the article should be retained per WP:NTEMP Park3r (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was never notable. Thenightaway (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SNOW Keep -- The article is well-sourced with academic discussion today, and it was before as well. This nom falls squarely under WP:NTEMP. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is false. There is ZERO academic discussion of CIVETS in the article. On the point of academic scholarship, I'd go so far as to say that if you ask 100 development economists if they could describe the concept, not a single one would be able to. Thenightaway (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly, we don't have 100 to ask, and that is not a usual requirement for notability. The concept was originated by the EUI, which is extremely difficult to cast as some negligible source. I also don't see how the journals cited above are suddenly non-academic, nor how the sources that are already cited are somehow invalid. This is feeling more and more like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. My SNOW Keep !vote stands. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concept was not coined by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It was coined by then-director of the Economist Intelligence Unit, Robert Ward. Neither Ward nor the Economist Intelligence Unit are academics. Ward is a consultant and The Economist Intelligence Unit is a company that provides consulting services. Part of that includes bandying about catchy academic-sounding labels that have no meaning, coherence and buy-in, but which convey scientism and rigor to the uninformed. Why is Wikipedia helping consultants advertise their services? Thenightaway (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "academic sources" cited in this AfD discussion are absolute bottom of the barrel. These are completely unknown journals that churn out rubbish. The fact the term is used in these fringe sources should be taken as a marker of non-notability, if anything. The first source is literally a predatory publisher (MDPI): https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10040077. I can't even bother to check the other ones, as these are just random sources that the other user found. Thenightaway (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator Chidgk1 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss more the source's
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is such divided opinion on this article that it is not a Snow Keep. I would welcome some more editors who are AFD regulars to assess this article and newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I disagree that WP:SNOW applies as it is not a frequently used current term (meaning it may be harder to verify) and some of the in-article sources are of questionable reliability. I would not outright dismiss the MDPI source Thenightaway mentioned as MDPI can publish good quality material, it should just be one of many factors in determining source reliability. I don't have enough knowledge on this topic to comment either way regarding the nomination, but I would suggest other editors to consider the relevance of WP:NEO for the nomination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Applied Economics and Physica A are most definitely *not* predatory journals; there is no basis for the claim that "These are completely unknown journals that churn out rubbish." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is clearly sections of the article that are WP:SYNTH (in particular the individual country sections), however, there's a difference between an article containing SYNTH material which can be removed as against a topic which is SYNTHESIS. Furthermore, WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. Finally, the origin of a topic is immaterial to a consideration of notability - it might affect where we write about the topic (simplistically, does Windows get covered by itself or as part of Microsoft?), but we need only consider whether or not there is SIGCOV in reliable sources to determine notability. No evidence has been provided that *all* the sources listed above are predatory publications. I find the following three reliable sources spanning a seven year period more than adequate to satisfy the GNG.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Petrović-Ranđelović, Marija; Mitić, Petar; Zdravković, Aleksandar; Cvetanović, Dušan; Cvetanović, Slobodan (2 April 2020). "Economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from CIVETS countries". Applied Economics. 52 (16): 1806–1815. doi:10.1080/00036846.2019.1679343. CIVETS are a group of such countries with fast growing economies. Economists often call this group 'tiger economies'. There is no geographical explanation for the formation of this group, which additionally includes structurally diverse economies. However, despite geographical dispersion and obvious variations, these countries have large and predominantly young population, a high level of domestic consumption and economies that are greatly based on products, while their financial systems are highly developed and modern. CIVETS countries generally do not record high inflation rates. Further, fiscal deficits have increased as a result of global economic crisis, but public debt in the CIVETS counties is still fairly low, and all the countries in this group appeared to be relatively immune to recent global recession, which is, generally speaking, only the proof of quality and properly created policy in the previous period. Even political risks in these countries are not high any more, therefore, although a certain risk is still present, all these countries have good prospects to remain stable. However, it is important to mention that CIVETS countries have not shown any interest in coordination of their foreign policies related to investment issues
^ Guerra-Barón, Angélica; Mendez, Alvaro (2015). "A comparative study of foreign economic policies: the CIVETS countries (Working Paper No. 3/2015)". Global South Unit, London School of Economics. Despite the fact that most CIVETS countries acceded to the WTO in 1994 (effective as of 1995) with a strategic view to adjusting to neoliberal ideas and so to participate in the global trade and investment environment, the decision to embrace the neoliberal logic was proximately responding to the pressure to overcome the financial crisis of the 1980s by accepting and implementing IMF recommendations. Furthermore, during the 1990s and the early 21st century, most CIVETS' policy-makers were either trained in the US or adopted the ideas of the Washington Consensus through their foreign affairs advisory bodies. In that context, it is clear that the phenomenon of policy convergence is easier to understand when the ideas and background of the main leaders are included as one of the variables of analysis.
^ Yi, Yong; Qi, Wei; Wu, Dandan (February 2013). "Are CIVETS the next BRICs? A comparative analysis from scientometrics perspective". Scientometrics. 94 (2): 615–628. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0791-9. CIVETS as a group playing a more and more important role in the world economy, is even considered as "the next BRICs". However, no comparative analysis of knowledge-based economy performance and scientific research performance between the two country groups has been conducted from the perspective of scientometrics.

This article could simply follow the format of the PIGS (economics) article; yes, the article needs cleanup, but that's not the point of AfD. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of companies founded by Brown University alumni[edit]

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

This list is an over categorization. The creation of companies by Brown University alumni is not a notable cultural phenomenon.

WP:CROSSCAT says:

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Lists. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. Brown is not the uber-university of entrepreneurship. That would be Stanford, as explained in List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this list, Stanford ranks #1, while Brown is #20. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. According to the linked ranking, Brown ranks 6th (out of the 100 evaluated universities) in terms of capital raised, sitting immediately below the other 5 companies with similar lists. This standing is liable to increase as the university invests in these programs. Filetime (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. You haven't explained why it is better grounded in policy to keep all of them, including the template, rather than deleting them as bad lists, except perhaps the MIT or Stanford ones. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Only Stanford has adequate sourcing. The others just have mentions in lists or non-independent boasting. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend. Dympies (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus. More policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all Whether someone went to a certain college or not, is irrelevant to their success. Colleges all use the same textbooks and have the same business classes anyway. Dream Focus 11:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I think the nominator makes a pretty good point about this being a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (thus satisfying WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia), but I also have to say that this is pretty transparently promotional—a prestige-measuring contest between universities, if you will. That also falls under the broader heading of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTPROMO: Wikipedia is not the university's PR team and should not act as if it were. This of course applies to all such lists for various universities. This article in particular doesn't exactly hide that it's also a work of WP:Original research, cross-referencing company founders with alumni. Where's the reliable source that made this cross-categorization on a group level, and why isn't it cited? My suspicion is that it simply does not exist. This kind of WP:SYNTH nightmare is the reason List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation had to be remade from scratch, but in that case we actually had a proper list external to Wikipedia to base it upon. TompaDompa (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rizwan Sajan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In principle, wealth, revenue, and other size metrics do not make one notable. Possibly paid editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ InstaMalik (talk • contribs)

comment Paid editing is not a reason for deletion. Although wealth, revenue, and other size metrics do not make one notable, the article seems to have lots of citations to sources which appear to be about the subject. It would be helpful if you could analyse those. Are they not about the subject? Are they not independent? For what reason do they not evidence WP:GNG? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article fails WP:GNG. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So a newly created account on same day with only 3 edits, that too only on this single article commenting here? Seems you are intentionally targeting this article. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO. Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also contributing on Wiki from a long time, so I have little bit idea about the things and criteria for creating a Wiki article. It's not about his wealth or revenue, it's about his recognition by the UAE government, Forbes. (Citations given in article).

Almost sources are independent, still you think that I need to work more on this then I'm looking forward for your guidance on this. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tagishsimon iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even the second account who placed ((Undisclosed paid)) tag, that user also has 5 edits only, seems fishy. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Rizwan Sajan satisfies the notability criteria for biographies as outlined in WP:BIO due to significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources (WP:RS) such as Arabian Business, Gulf News. His entrepreneurial activities and leadership roles within the Danube Group are well-documented, and his involvement in notable projects and philanthropic efforts has been recognized by reputable awards (WP:ANYBIO). The subject's impact on the business sector in the UAE is further corroborated by coverage in Forbes Middle East, (Staff) establishing his notability within the context of WP:GNG. The article should be retained and can be improved by incorporating additional secondary sources that meet WP:V and WP:NPOV. Upon further investigation, the nominator seems to have almost no experience with wikipedia. In fact, @Tagishsimon edit history shows only deletion nominations, and what seems to possibly be vandalism by tagging. and nominating. Nominator makes this AfD suspicious. May take to Ani. These do not seem like WP:Goodfaith edits.

PD Slessor (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I say - civilly, @PD Slessor: - that you are a complete and utter fucking idiot. 1) I did not propose this deletion 2) I spoke in favour of more thought being put into keeping the article. Now off you pop to ANI with your arrant stupidity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant to tag the @DJ InstaMalik, not you @Tagishsimon. No need for ANI, if you look at the nominator, you will see the history I mentioned. I meant to mention your comment about nominator, but it was lost in translation. Don't worry, I like getting bitten. I did make a mistake. Complete and utter fucking idiot though? Maybe. Perhaps if I was somewhat smart i'd start an ANI, and cry, pointing out how you bit the poor little new comer, using language and demeanor that if every Wikipedian used, would make Brittanica feel justified for comparing Wiki community to a "public bathroom." Anyways, my apologies for the confusion, and I forgive your biting. No hard feelings. PD Slessor (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PD Slessor: My apologies for biting you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its ok. My apologies for dumbassering you. PD Slessor (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind words @PD Slessor iVickyChoudhary (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Lots of brief, vanilla, promo bios, interviews and mentions, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Keep votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. // Timothy :: talk 12:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kindly guide me on this so I can improve the article. @TimothyBlue iVickyChoudhary (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment This in Forbes India by the Forbes staff [67] seems ok but we need more than that. The Gulf Times links used in the article are the best sources, some are videos, others are not bad. We need a few more decent sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please guide me that on what topics I need to add few more decent souces, so I can improve this article. @Oaktree b iVickyChoudhary (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
more articles in what we call reliable sources, about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got that point, but where/on which topic in the article I need to add more sources. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oaktree b Recently @Jeraxmoira Added more reliable sources and expand career section. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Retracted my previous vote as I had mentioned the wrong criteria by mistake. At this point, BLP passes WP:NBASIC. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, none of the sources presented in the article or referenced in this discussion have significant coverage as required by GNG. This is a policy failure that in my opinion has not been adequately addressed by those suggesting keeping the article. Combined with the undercurrent of undisclosed conflicts of interest, this article should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to WP:NBASIC - 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 and per WP:ANYBIO - He has received several notable awards:
- Dubai Quality Award in 2012 by Govt. of Dubai.
- Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Business Excellence Award by Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry in 2012.
- 7th in Top 100 Indian leaders in the UAE (2020) by Forbes Middle East and 8th In Forbes Middle East (2021).
I am happy to stand corrected if NBASIC or ANYBIO does not apply here for some reason.

If you are implying User:IVickyChoudhary's COI, I have placed the ((Undisclosed paid)) to the article and FWIW he hasn't edited the article since 16 October, 2023. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no conflicts of interest, it's just confusion of thinking my News media company(we run a cricket news website under it) as media agency, but I or we have nothing to do with any kinda agency work.

And because of this conflicts of interest thing, I can't even improve this article, still some authors improved it. Hope you will review it again. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Editors are still split between keeping and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Germania Insurance Amphitheater performers[edit]

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

The article has been unsourced since 2013, though I'm sure routine coverage can be found to verify the list of performers (if nothing else). I'm not sure what the encyclopedic value/precedent is for determining whether list articles such as this one should exist. Worth noting: the Germania Insurance Amphitheater does not currently have its own page. It has a one-paragraph blurb on the Circuit of the Americas page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- To me, the list is a good historical record. Maybe it needs an "Unreferenced" tag on the article instead of being deleted and see if the article improves over time. Perhaps someone wants to have a go at creating an article on the Germania Insurance Amphitheater and incorporate the list into the article. Nv8200pa talk 00:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I agree a better approach is creating an article about the amphitheater and incorporating the list there (or renaming the list article and expanding it). I found some sources such as this Billboard article (page 8, Amp It Up) and along with the sources in Circuit of the Americas, it also won a couple awards. (Note it's changed names a few times:Tower>Austin360>Germania Insurance). S0091 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I wonder if the collapsed table at Joe Louis Arena#Other tenants and events could serve as a precedent/example? (Though that one is incomplete given that it stops in 2006 and Joe Louis closed in 2017...)Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Something else to consider is @Rodrigo1198 has submitted Draft:List of Germania Insurance Super Stage performers which I do not think meets the notability criteria for a standalone list so if this AfD ends up a merge then that list will likely be a merge as well, thus perhaps two collapsed lists in the main article. Also collapse does not work for mobile devices. All of this may be fine but want to make sure folks are aware. S0091 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  How about a combination of List of Germania Insurance Amphitheater and Super Stage Performers since it is technically in the same location. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  
  I created Germania Insurance Amphitheater and merge both List of Germania Insurance Super Stage performers and List of Germania Insurance Amphitheater performers. I added the Super Stage to the article because it involves the Amphitheater as the Super Stage is used when capacity of the Germania Insurance Amphitheater is exceed. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. This isn't exactly Carnegie Hall, and even that doesn't get a list of performers there (though it does have World premieres at Carnegie Hall). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it is a world-class facility, it has one. As of now, it is one of the iconic racetracks in the United States. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose is to give you insight of who has performed is like the races that have held there. They have their own wiki article. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also it is a Formula 1 Venue and many people around the world come to COTA for the race. It has the distinction that has the United States Grand Prix one of the prestigious title names of motorsports. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, we're not in the business of providing "insight"; we utilize reliable sources' insights. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many Delete nominations does an article need so it can be deleted? Rodrigo1198 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As few as one, but this is not a poll. Mach61 (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect given @Rodrigo1198: has created Germania Insurance Amphitheater and moved the list there, a redirect to the new article will maintain the history, though I am not opposed to deleting. Also pinging @Significa liberdade: and @Clarityfiend: to get their thoughts. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This works for me. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't work for me. The list is excessive wherever it's placed. Much more famous music venues do not go into so much detail, e.g. Grand Ole Opry, Radio City Music Hall, Hollywood Bowl. The last one — by far the most detailed of the three — lists a few notable acts per decade, whereas this list averages maybe a dozen a year. Wikipedia is not a directory. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then if it’s not a directory then List of El Clasico matches should be gone if that’s the logic. I think they should have a list of performers as well for those articles because there are people interested in knowing these facts. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Do the football clubs play each other a dozen times a year? Also, WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a good reason to keep this. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then remove all lists of performers for every venue that has one then. Madison Square Garden and T-Mobile Arena has one and separate. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of entertainment events at Madison Square Garden has a sparse selection. I will nominate List of events at T-Mobile Arena. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Although he may/not fail WP:NPOL, !voters point out he has received some significant press coverage which is - or can be - incorporated into the article. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gabriel Alemparte[edit]

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

Absolutely irrelevant activist. Never elected to any office as a politician. He is the vice-president of a party that's never had anybody elected to any post. Definitely non notable Bedivere (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. I see this is also up for deletion on Spanish Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:NPOL. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Has not held any role that would confer automatic passage of WP:NPOL in and of itself, but the article features neither the substance nor the sourcing needed to get him over WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Gabriel Alemparte is the vice president of a political party officially established in Chile, in addition to being a public figure of the Chilean center right-wing, he is a columnist in several relevant media outlets in the press, such as La Tercera. This article should not to be deleted due to the political bias of some editors, because the relevance is proven and can possibly be improved by adding other reliable sources than those it already has.--Igallards7 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Igallards7: the political bias of some editors? I really think you can vote without the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bbb23 This is not about attacking or making gratuitous accusations, I am saying that relevance can be demonstrated with reliable and verifiable sources. In honor of neutrality, it would be good to see what happens with the relevance of biographies of other vice presidents of other national political parties officially established in a country. Igallards7 (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Making controversial and polemic remarks on a low-rank TV program is not making Alemparte notable. Bedivere (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way @Bbb23, isn't this canvassing [68] from Carigval.97 (talk · contribs)? Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's blatant canvassing. I've warned the user. Please let me know if it happens again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: There's no failure of WP:NPOL, because Alemparte has received an important coverage from media (both pro-government and Boric-opponent media, for example El Desconcierto or Ex-Ante). Similarly, Alemparte has held state–offices like the surrogate mayor's office of Maipú or even the position of Chief of staff of ministeries during the governments of Michelle Bachelet.--Carigval.97 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evidently fails NPOL. Never elected to an office, fails NPOL, and has never held any state-office', that is blatantly untrue. In Chile, the equivalent of state/province-wide office is gobernador regional, delegado presidencial regional, delegado presidencial provincial, and in general members of Consejos Regionales and members of the Parliament, in addition to Cabinet members. Mayors, for instance, are not inherently notable, unless it is Santiago or regional capitals. Bedivere (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I repeat, despite Alemparte's offices, you are ignoring a point that establishes the same rule you cited (WP:NPOL): 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage' (in Alemparte's cases: Radio Bío-Bío, La Tercera, El Desconcierto, Diario Financiero, etc). In the US, there's the case of Tony Podesta, a lobbist and activist (as you say about Alemparte) who has not held any position (neither in a political party nor in the state) and who has had press coverage given his controversies.--Carigval.97 (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NPOL criteria. He has media coverage and held a state office as mayor of a commune in Santiago, Chile.-- 6UNK3R (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — 6UNK3R (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was just an interim mayor, as he was appointed by the incumbent mayor temporarily and held the office just for a little time. That does not confer notability at all. You can imagine, had we taken that stance, there would be hundreds of thousands of articles about such "surrogate mayors" (as Carigval mentions them). Bedivere (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The sentence 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage' in WP:NPOL is not a pass/fail criteria like the other bullets in NPOL. The SNG is written in a way to provide automatic passes to national and statewide elected officials. Because many elected officials serve in local offices, with powers and responsibilities that vary greatly, the SNG provides a way for local officials to meet our communities notability standard by meeting GNG. So, if the individual does not hold an elected or appointed federal/statewide position, we must apply GNG and evaluate the sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NPOL. Also he is a public figure. --Carlos yo (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlos yo As expressed above he evidently fails NPOL. How does Alemparte pass GNG? Bedivere (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bedivere, the NPOL applies —as Carlos Yo, 6UNKR, and Enos have also expressed (this last one in the edition history)—... Partially, but it applies (for the significant press coverage). Similarly, Alemparte passes GNG because at least fourteen reliable, independent, secondary, and published sources provide significant coverage specifically about him (Alemparte).^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14] Carigval.97 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read carefully NPOL. If this person fails NPOL, as they do, it could still pass GNG. My opinion is that he doesn't. While he has made controversial remarks as a result of his participation on a TV show, that does not make him notable. Furthermore the article reads like a CV. That's why I ask @SportingFlyer to reconsider. This seems to me like a promotional effort in favor of Alemparte. Bedivere (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've re-reviewed the article and done a source search and even when you discard Sin Filtros and interviews, I think there's still enough there to pass GNG. There's just quite a bit of coverage from all corners in the past couple years or so. I've also seen articles that read far closer to CVs than this one. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep NPOL aside, it seems to me as if he passes GNG in Spanish-language sources. Not a normal keep because my selective review wasn't convincing (not sure if sources are reliable, one was an interview), but it was good enough on the whole. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Realiable Sources
^ "Gabriel Alemparte, tras apoyo de Demócratas al A favor: Es una frivolidad política decir que esta es la Constitución de Kast". Ex-Ante. 2 November 2023. Retrieved 25 December 2023. ^ ""Nos pillaron, ¡somos amantes!": Ximena Rincón lanza irónica aclaración de su relación con Gabriel Alemparte". 24 Horas. 12 December 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023. ^ "Gabriel Alemparte y crisis sanitaria: Hay una lamentable falta de gestión, que por una sobre ideologización termina costando vidas". Ex-Ante. 13 June 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Gabriel Alemparte, el hombre que cree saber más de lo que sabe". La Voz de los que Sobran. 7 September 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Gabriel Alemparte: "La díada rechazo y apruebo constituirá un nuevo parteaguas en la ex Concertación"". Diario Financiero. 30 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Alemparte cuestiona a Baltasar Garzón: En Twitter le recuerdan cuando le profesó admiración" (in Spanish). El Desconcierto. 18 July 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023. ^ "Respuesta de CIPER a la declaración de Gabriel Alemparte en el programa Sin Filtros". CIPER. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Gabriel Alemparte y amenaza de expulsiones en la DC por apoyos al Rechazo: La libertad de expresión no se pierde por pertenecer a un partido". Ex-Ante. 14 July 2022. Retrieved 25 December 2023. ^ "«Su insistencia da cuenta de su ignorancia»: el cruce de Gabriel Alemparte con Bárbara Sepúlveda tras acusación del abogado contra el PC". The Clinic. 4 November 2022. Retrieved 27 December 2023. ^ "Gabriel Alemparte y momento de furia en Sin Filtros tras ser acusado de lobbista: abandonó el estudio" (in Spanish). Radio Bío Bío. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Gabriel Alemparte lanzó dura acusación sobre el pasado de Jaime Bassa tras tenso cruce entre ambos". The Clinic. 27 September 2022. Retrieved 27 December 2023. ^ "La sorprendente defensa de Alemparte a Boric tras criticada frase de Mellado". El Desconcierto. 18 November 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ ""Sí, nos pillaron...": Ximena Rincón respondió a las especulaciones amorosas por foto viral con Gabriel Alemparte". ADN Radio Chile. 12 December 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2023. ^ ""Si yo a usted le dijera guatona...": Gabriel Alemparte reaccionó ante dicho de Paulina Vodanovic". Publimetro Chile. 13 November 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2023.

List of Realiable Sources

^ "Gabriel Alemparte, tras apoyo de Demócratas al A favor: Es una frivolidad política decir que esta es la Constitución de Kast". Ex-Ante. 2 November 2023. Retrieved 25 December 2023.
^ ""Nos pillaron, ¡somos amantes!": Ximena Rincón lanza irónica aclaración de su relación con Gabriel Alemparte". 24 Horas. 12 December 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
^ "Gabriel Alemparte y crisis sanitaria: Hay una lamentable falta de gestión, que por una sobre ideologización termina costando vidas". Ex-Ante. 13 June 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ "Gabriel Alemparte, el hombre que cree saber más de lo que sabe". La Voz de los que Sobran. 7 September 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ "Gabriel Alemparte: "La díada rechazo y apruebo constituirá un nuevo parteaguas en la ex Concertación"". Diario Financiero. 30 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ "Alemparte cuestiona a Baltasar Garzón: En Twitter le recuerdan cuando le profesó admiración" (in Spanish). El Desconcierto. 18 July 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
^ "Respuesta de CIPER a la declaración de Gabriel Alemparte en el programa Sin Filtros". CIPER. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ "Gabriel Alemparte y amenaza de expulsiones en la DC por apoyos al Rechazo: La libertad de expresión no se pierde por pertenecer a un partido". Ex-Ante. 14 July 2022. Retrieved 25 December 2023.
^ "«Su insistencia da cuenta de su ignorancia»: el cruce de Gabriel Alemparte con Bárbara Sepúlveda tras acusación del abogado contra el PC". The Clinic. 4 November 2022. Retrieved 27 December 2023.
^ "Gabriel Alemparte y momento de furia en Sin Filtros tras ser acusado de lobbista: abandonó el estudio" (in Spanish). Radio Bío Bío. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ "Gabriel Alemparte lanzó dura acusación sobre el pasado de Jaime Bassa tras tenso cruce entre ambos". The Clinic. 27 September 2022. Retrieved 27 December 2023.
^ "La sorprendente defensa de Alemparte a Boric tras criticada frase de Mellado". El Desconcierto. 18 November 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ ""Sí, nos pillaron...": Ximena Rincón respondió a las especulaciones amorosas por foto viral con Gabriel Alemparte". ADN Radio Chile. 12 December 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
^ ""Si yo a usted le dijera guatona...": Gabriel Alemparte reaccionó ante dicho de Paulina Vodanovic". Publimetro Chile. 13 November 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2023.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doko Demo Issyo. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toro Inoue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Toro Inoue

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

Not sure if this passes GNG after trying to find a good source at google search; the birthday party and a pride thing are the only useful sources. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There's at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV here from a cursory glance. He's been the protagonist of numerous games so far, enough to comprise a series larger than most video game series. I'm still not sure whether he is notable, but it's almost certainly going to involve solely Japanese sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also this article, which says "Toro is firmly established as a cultural icon in the Far East". Not significant coverage in itself, but indicative that there's more to be found somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found another piece of SIGCOV here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep In addition to the above sources, I found this significant coverage as part of a feature on animal stars in games in a Chinese magazine. In my opinion, this is sufficient to make him squeak by notability. Additionally, I would expect more coverage to exist given his high profile in Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Doko Demo Issyo. Now that the article has been created, I am more comfortable with merging the character there due to the lack of many sources about him. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create Doko Demo Issyo and redirect there I searched for Japanese articles about Toro Inoue and the ones I found are primarily about the Doko Demo Issyo series which he is the mascot of. [69][70] We don't have an article for that series, but I would support creating that article and having this page redirect there. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is whether the series is mentioned as a whole in sufficient RS. I've found a couple for various games in the series, but never enough to meet GNG. Also this is dismissing the fact that he is most likely a notable character. If the series is also notable, both can exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two sources I linked discuss the series directly and in detail. A series article would be a good central place to talk about the games as well as Toro. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does seem like the series is notable, but you have yet to say whether you believe Toro himself is notable. It's pretty common to have articles on both a series and their protagonist, I don't see why this would be an exception to the rule. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zx, with respect, you always seem to be under the impression that if a subject is notable by Wikipedia's definition, then a stand-alone article is justifiable without exception. We can assess each case independently on whether it is merited ("presumed" part of GNG). I do think that Toro is a "notable" subject (in the general sense of the term), but it's a weak case for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The sources you listed are all short blurbs, except the article about his (and other characters') birthday event. There isn't much to say about him; the article would be short. Given the fact that Doko Demo Issyo is the parent subject, and Toro is often discussed in context of the series, I think it would be more effective to have one article about the series and its games, with a section about Toro as sort of being a legacy of the series. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what's so odd about thinking that - WP:NOTMERGE says that merging should be avoided if "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short." Your entire argument hinges around articles being too short, which the page explicitly says should not be used as a rationale unless they are "one or two sentences" long, which is much shorter than the current state of the article, much less its potential size when expanded. The point is that merging is entirely up to personal opinion/consensus, but there is no rule requiring short notable articles to be merged unless people decide it so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said there were any rules in play, you did. That's why I responded the way I did. Anyways, I would not call these subjects "discrete". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restructure per Tarkus' suggestion. I feel given the unique nature of this subject that may be the best route.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Animal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a separate article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I have just now created Doko Demo Issyo, which I mentioned above as a possible redirect target. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into Doko Demo Issyo. They're both notable subjects, but not independently so. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to series article. The series is definitely notable and this character can be covered there, in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Isaac Asimov short stories bibliography. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody Here But—[edit]

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

No indication of passing WP:NB. While the book appears to exist, the entry is entirely unsourced, and has been tagged as such since 2007. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, which consisted almost entirely of a different thing, Ain't Nobody Here but Us Chickens, and terms not relevant to the actual book. A search on other Wikipedias did not probe anything substantial either, except a singular catalogue entry from the Italian Wikipedia which merely documents its existence and provides nothing else. I was thinking it would maybe pass because of criteria 5, but I didn't find anything that would indicate this book as a part of Asimov's biography, aside from him being the author of the book. KangarooGymnast (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. KangarooGymnast (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not actually a book. It's a short story. Some Asimov stories are hugely notable, having been discussed in depth in many guides to science fiction and literary analyses. This is not, as far as I can find, one of them. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out to me! KangarooGymnast (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A sensible ATD is to redirect to Nightfall and Other Stories. —siro χ o 12:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The best notability case here would I think have to rest on WP:NB 5, and the idea that when we have an author of such major prominence it is desirable for completeness sake to summarize the contents of every story in Nightfall and Other Stories (where currently every story is a bluelink). Searching scholarly databases, all I find on a first look are a few articles like this one which use the story in a training corpus to study narrative point of view-- certainly not sigcov of the story.

It's possible that some extended discussion of this story has happened within sources that don't mention it in the title, e.g., in the prefaces of scholarly editions; articles about the Nightfall book; articles about Asimov / sci fi in general... part of why I'd entertain an NB5 rationale is that I can easily imagine such coverage existing somewhere, especially in non-digitized sources closer to its first publication. But without said coverage in hand, I don't want to make a keep argument. I can't do more digging now but will come back if I find more. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 5. Note that this does not require any sourcing for the story, just for Asimov as a subject of study, like [71], [72], [73] for a quick few. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Jclemens: Nah. It's a short story, not a book, so NBOOK does not properly apply. In particular, NBOOK criteria 5 is not valid, since the story is not likely to meet "Threshold standards" (being held in a major library), and anyway, NBOOK states that "Articles that are plot summaries" are not valid. Find sources that show some coverage of this first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Isaac Asimov short stories bibliography. Obvious GNG fail, pure plot summary. This topic may be notable, since the author is quite famous, but we cannot assume WP:SOURCESEXIST, and the ones cited above are not relevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd be happy to revise my vote if sources about this work are found (please ping me if this happens). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Asimov short stories bibliography unless relevant sources can be found. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge I believe this may be notable but without sources it's impossible to write a reliable article. Holding out the faith that someone will one day improve this and split it once again. Archrogue (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WakeyLeaks[edit]

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

Non notable neologism for a college footbal scandal Andre🚐 03:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America. Andre🚐 03:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The scandal itself is clearly notable with cited significant coverage from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Athletic, ESPN, etc. over multiple years and comparisons to other notable college football scandals. The scandal is called "Wakeyleaks" in each and every article and has become the common name for the controversy.

PK-WIKI (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Wake Forest Demon Deacons football team#Leaks of plays where it's covered in more detail and actually explained. There's definitely reliable sources, but the article is a single sentence long and doesn't appear significant enough (long term) and seems better suited to be a part of the season article. If the event were more significant in terms of long term impact, I'd propose redirecting to Wake Forest Demon Deacons football. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.

Additionally, the Wakeyleaks scandal (not the 2016 season) still has articles being written about it in 2023 that show the long-term significance vis-à-vis other events such as the Michigan Wolverines football sign-stealing scandal.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep article certainly needs some fleshing out, but the scandal is notable and worthy of its own page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Subject easily meets the WP:GNG and is WP:SUSTAINED per the sources provided by PK-WIKI. The article does need some work but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the decision is against keeping, I'd recommend a redirect to Wake Forest Demon Deacons football as a WP:ATD. User:Let'srun 14:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shining Inheritance (Philippine TV series)[edit]

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

Unreleased future TV series. WP:CRYSTAL, sources appear to be press releases and WP:ROUTINE. Andre🚐 03:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Andre🚐 03:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify as it's a new article where sources to establish notability may become apparent shortly into early next year. I don't see much point restoring the redirect if it's an upcoming show in its own right now, so sending to draft space to afford more development time seems more reasonable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I didn't know that's an option. In which case, I agree, draftify is a good call for this one. Better wait for the series to air before creating a new article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify is certainly an option that I am also fine with. I would have draftified it straight out of the new pages feed but it's not actually a new page, since it was created out of an old redirect to the Korean series that it's based on (which also makes merge a potential option too) Andre🚐 05:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, while it is a "new" article insofar as overwriting the redirect, it's not "new" as it has existing history in the form of the redirect. The redirect would probably serve little purpose now if the show is to exist in its own right, though I feel the expansion into an article is a little WP:TOOSOON. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the redirect serves no purpose and it wasn't a candidate for speedy draftification, thus this AFD, but draftify is a fine outcome. Andre🚐 01:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. Best created once the show is near its premiere. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masque of the Red Death (Ravenloft)[edit]

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

Unreferenced plot summary related to Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales. Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE does not suggest separate notability from the book that describes it. Per WP:ATD-R, suggest redirecting this there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales - There is no real reason for there to be separate articles that cover such closely related topics with much of the same information in both. The article with the actual gamebook as the subject is in slightly better shape - while most of the content is based on Dragon magazine, which is not a secondary source as it was an official D&D publication, it does at least cite a couple of reviews from other publications. And even the external links being used in this article are actually reviews on the gamebook. As there is no actually sourced information in this article, and as the vast majority of the information here is already present at the target, a simple redirect would suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales - The improvements made to the article by Guinness323 should definitely be merged over to the other article, so changing my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge selectively to Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales - That article has been created later than Masque of the Red Death (Ravenloft), it seems to me as a good faith unintentional WP:CONTENTFORK. So I think we should not have two articles, and as has been said, Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales is better developed at this point. I do believe a few things should be preserved in a merge as not present at the target, specifically a note of the related products (the d20 version, Dungeon adventures, The Gothic Earth Gazetteer). Daranios (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales: There is no evidence that this completely unreferenced article's subject is notable. All of the potential sources are either unreliable or insubstantial. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support a merge per the below discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Not knowing there was a separate article for Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales, I rewrote this article, adding sources and reviews and deleting unsourced material, and I believe the article is now much improved. However, as other editors have noted, it does not make sense to have two articles about the same publication. Guinness323 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guinness323 Thank you. Merge seems to make most sense now. Any chance you could do it? I am pretty sure we could close this then as it would be superior to just redirecting (@Susmuffin @QuicoleJR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved material from this article to the "and Other Tales" article. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. Guinness323 (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northern Ukraine campaign. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Vasylkiv[edit]

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

This article's substance and is largely based on events that have not been substantiated. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING apply. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Curbon7 (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Northern Ukraine campaign. Alternatively, the article can be converted to the "Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (courtesy ping to proposer Mr.User200), with a broader scope. Initial reports of a large-scale battle here do not seem to have manifested, and are likely a result of the fog-of-war. Curbon7 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree that anything of value could be merged into Northern Ukraine campaign, though it already has a section Ukrainian victory at Vasylkiv and the content there probably requires review. A search of news here reterns only one hit for "Battle of Vasylkiv" (search in quotes) that is not Wiki or a Wiki mirror. This is not a "named" battle. The reports that do exist look more like smoke and mirrors and/or largely inflated. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move to Vasylkiv attacks or Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are sources giving sigcov to events in Vasylkiv during the initial invasion (like the Guardian and NYT articles), including the reports of Russian landing attempts, so WP:GNG is satisfied. There were definitely missile attacks. There may have been incursions by sabotage groups. There may or may not have been an abortive Russian plan to seize the airbase. There probably were not cargo planes full of Russian troops shot down, but that this was reported is an event of the war. (The rooster should be mentioned.) —Michael Z. 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Just thought I'd mention that currently, Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a Redirect to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Northern Ukraine campaign -- Like other wars, not every action is independently notable. Sources here are WP:PRIMARYNEWS (and, no, lots and lots of news mentions in the weeks around the battle do not eliminated the need for secondary sources that analyse the longer-term WP:EFFECT required by WP:NEVENT), and there is lack of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DEPTH. There is no policy basis for this to be standalone article. Note to closer: If merge is not the consensus, please consider these as arguments for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move to Vasylkiv attacks or Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, since no battle took place and most events reported or covered are separate incidents.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge is another option.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Northern Ukraine campaign as an ATD; WP:NOPAGE applies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swap Magic[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. QuietCicada - Talk 02:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. QuietCicada - Talk 02:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article about a niche disc to enable PS2 homebrewing. If there were sources, would suggest a merge with Homebrew (video games), but there isn't coverage to evidence its significance. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I was able to find some short coverage in Diànzǐ Yóuxì Ruǎnjiàn and PSX Extreme (1, 2, 3), but not enough to show notability. I was unable to find any suitable coverage on Google or Google books. Waxworker (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non-notable software, fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - article just doesn't pass WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Regional lockout#Sony. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicor Gas[edit]

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

This topic is not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH, from my BEFORE investigation. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Illinois. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@बिनोद थारू can you please explain the level of WP:BEFORE searches you did before bringing this AfD? I easily found several reliable-source articles that discuss the article subject at length:

Robert Kelter, Peace, Love, Competition. An Initial Look at the Restructuring of Illinois Residential Energy Markets, 33 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 875 (2002) [74]
SEC Probes Accounting Problems at NICOR [75]
State regulators clamp down on Nicor Gas [76]

It seems this should be withdrawn. Failing that, it should be keep on the rule that decisions about notability depend on the existence of sources and not the state of sourcing in the article. Oblivy (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree to your comment. I misread the WP:CORP guideline as requiring notability beyond WP:SIGCOV but it turns out it's sufficient, as long as the sources are reliable (more strict reliability criteria though). I will withdrawn the nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veronica Lalande-Lapointe[edit]

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

This biography article lacks in-depth sources to establish notability. The only citation fails verification so essentially the article is un-referenced. After searching, found a few websites with a passing mention, but unable to verify facts in the article. Created on 10 November 2006.)) JoeNMLC (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: No coverage found at all for this bowler, even in Canadian sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Looking at the source cited in the article, it does confirm that she finished 21st in the event listed and is labeled with a Canadian nationality. There aren’t many facts in the article, so I won’t make an argument it should be kept, but there’s nothing here that isn’t at least included in the source. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete

While I did find other sources (and even a page giving zodiac information to hide her exact birthday), I didn't find anything covering her in any depth. She bowled for the Canadian youth league in 2003 and 2004; qualifying scores in the 2006 Cup; that she had also bowled in the 2005 Cup, also alongside Michael Schmidt; that her rank in 2005 was 31, so she moved up 10 places, good on her; and that there are more listings on reddit for Wikipedia AfD than I'd ever cared to wonder about.

On the plus side, I did find a single actual news article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/schmidt-finishes-third-at-bowling-world-cup/article20416705/

But I didn't find anything to show notability. Per the sports criterion, I think the coverage I found falls under "trivial".

I do see where it was once nominated for deletion once before, back on 2013-08-13. OIM20 (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hitlist (2009 film)[edit]

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

Fails NFILM. Lack of reviews from RS. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CptViraj (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
at the very least redirect to Sandip Ray#Filmography.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--->changing to full Keep in the light of the at least 2 existing reviews presented by Eluchil404. Thank you!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I found reviews in The Times of India [77] and the The Telegraph (India)[78] which look usable to me. A search in Bengali should probably turn up some more. If the sources are judged insufficient for some reason a redirect as suggested by User:Mushy Yank would still be appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They both are not independent sources per Wikipedia:NFSOURCES. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
???? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on whether the sources meet the standards required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per provided reviews. Not particularly moved by the claim that they are "not independent". Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like sources have been found. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Braithwaite, Oklahoma[edit]

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

Former station on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=8430f8fd39bfe9cf13a0ce8085a1ff90, but no evidence of anything else than a WP:GNIS fail. I did not find a single source in newspapers.com or Google other than a couple lists of stations like http://streamlinermemories.info/SF/SF63TTocr.pdf and this oil well test. No indication this was a notable community, if ever a community at all. The youtube video is not at all reliable. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think WP:GEOLAND would count for this considering it was a town at one point. It has a Google maps spot and a feature ID and that makes me think this town was at least notable at one point. I’d say if it existed, it counts. Seeing you provided evidence for the towns existence, it should be considered at least once notable.

Keep DannonCool (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, first read WP:GNIS. Google maps does not have people who independently decide what labels to put on it, no one made an editorial decision determining this was a town and should have a label there: they just import data from the GNIS. Now where does GNIS come from? In 1978 (in this case), someone read the map I linked and recorded every name on it and gave them feature IDs. They also did not perform analysis on these features, and in many cases classified them as "populated place" even when (a) they weren't populated places at all and (b) that "populated place" is not actually a town, is just a neighborhood of sorts, or does not meet standards for a standalone article. Many times railroads had a station in rural areas and gave it a name and put it on the timetables, but again, that does not mean it was a town – sometimes the name was just a local landowner. GEOLAND does not say "all towns are notable", it says legally recognized places are presumed notable. But there having been a label on a map once does not mean it's legally recognized, is notable, or is even an actual town. We don't know that this existed! If you can find significant coverage about a town beyond some guy going to the ruins of the station, then we can talk. The same goes for any of the articles you made. Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we can talk about how it was listed as a Townsite, not a post office, in George Shirks “Oklahoma Place Names” book. https://books.google.com/books?id=KpAmsIFdutAC&pg=PA3&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was definitely a town.

Keep DannonCool (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A townsite isn't quite the same as a town either. Reywas92^Talk 16:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain? It was a townsite with a post office. I still think we should keep it because it was a townsite. 72.222.91.196 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. I was logged out. DannonCool (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing a ton of articles announcing the new town of Braithwaite, Oklahoma, in 1907 newspapers on Newspapers.com. This was a platted community of at least 28 blocks with its own school district, stores, post office, rail station, etc. While there is no community now, and the school district was dissolved thirty years later, notability is not temporary, and there is coverage of Braithwaite in local and statewide newspapers and books. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per HEY. Djflem (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wahlsten, Minnesota[edit]

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

Another case where people should be reading the works cited, as the place names book lists this as a "railroad station", not a town, and the topos and aerials show the same. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, but:
WAHLSTEN a village in section 29 of Kugler Township, which had a Duluth, Missabe, and Iron Range Railroad station
— Upham, Warren (2001). "Wahlsten". Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia. Minnesota Historical Society Press. p. 538. ISBN 9780873513968.
2001 revised edition, you see. The MHS did some work on the original. Uncle G (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as a recognized settlement. The place is rather spread out and best known for, on the physical side, streams, flora, and fauna, and on the human side, roads and a former railway station. The tracks have been replaced by a trail. gidonb (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'd like to see proof of it being known for streams. And there's an "Ah, but" for this, too.
  Ah, but: Minnesota doesn't legally recognize villages any more. It stopped doing so on 1974-01-01. There hasn't been any such legal entity as a village in Minnesota for 50 years minus a fortnight. (Chapter 123, S.F. No. 655 of 1973. Laws of Minnesota. p. 233.)
  Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to see some evidence at all. There's no rail station there, and as best I can tell there hasn't been one for half a century at least, maybe longer. "Rather spread out" really means "this is a locale, not a town or village." Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are only a few sparse structures on satellite and not much else besides forests and fields for miles in any direction. The railroad in question was dug out at some point years ago and is now labelled on GMaps as a "snowmobile trail" (although I assume the trail is also used for hiking and such in the summer).

Per User:Uncle G, whatever "village" or "unincorporated community" claim there supposedly is isn't legally recognized anymore, and even if it was, there is hardly anything there to really justify a "village" or "unincorporated community" claim. Unless there is any other proof out there that this was an actual recognized settlement at some point, this was certainly just a marker for a railway stop and nothing more. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never called this a village. That's in User:Uncle G's citation, who then raised this with me. Or maybe he was just thinking out loud. In any case, more scrutiny led me to believe that it is unclear whether this is a populated place/community/settlement or just some houses that share a road. Perhaps there was more there there in the past but I am not 100% sure even about of that. gidonb (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did take a look at aerial photography of this region from the 1930s and later in the 20th century and could not distil a clear concentration of structures at that time. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This is another sad example of a rural railroad waypoint being falsely described as a "community" based only on GNIS and maybe a place-names guide. This map: [79] shows Wahlsten to be located on land owned by a C. Wahlstein, strongly suggesting this was a flag stop named for the local landowner (this was once a common practice on railroads). Flag stops are not inherently notable, and without other information we have no evidence this was a populated OR legally-recognized place. The 1951 Biwabik NE, MN USGS topo map shows a level crossing with 1 (one) building: [80], nothing even approaching a community. It's therefore a fail of WP:GEOLAND and without secondary coverage a fail of WP:GNG also. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I did a deep dive including searching Newspapers and was unable to find anything that would be substantive. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi[edit]

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

A border line accept at WP:AFC with a passionate SPA creator. Not at all clear how they pass WP:GNG, apparently known for his role in the Khilafat Movement during the British Raj in Sindh, Pakistan, but the sources are not clear on what this role was, he managed a library and established the Sindh Provincial Khilafat Committee but these things are not inherently notable? Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked sockpuppet

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. I disagree with te deleting. I've added more references, including some in Urdu. I'm open to assisting with any issues and suggest using Google Translate for the non-English content to confirm. SaneFlint (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This opinion has been recorded formally lower down in the discussion. I am not striking it out. It is sufficient to draw the closer's attention to it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I trust editors will address the confirmation or translation of reference number 1,and 6 written in Urdu. Google translate might be helpful for that. SaneFlint (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment declined 12 times and rejected once, before being accepted at WP:AFC. Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is not quite an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contributors to this discussion will wish to note that the creating/major editor of the article is busy seeking to verify notability by use of references. I am not reviewing their work and therefore cannot comment upon it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The academic paper Contributions of Allama Syed Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi Towards Religion and Education". suggests that the subject is found notable by (some) Islamic scholars. I don't read Urdu, so I'm at a disadvantage for most of the refs, but ref 6 also suggests notability. I think the article has all sorts of problems, but notability is not one of them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment A before would also have found https://umm-ul-qura.org/2021/01/13/biography-of-shaykh-muhibullah-shah-rashdi/ from which:

The father of Shaykh Muhibullah, Shaykh Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi was a great and respected scholar, even King AbdulAziz had excellent relations with him and would exchange letters with him (as mentioned by Shaykh Muhibullah in his auto biography present in “Bahrul Ulum” p 41)

Allamah Sayid Sulayman Nadwi wrote: “Sayid Ihsanullah Shah (rah) was a great scholar of Hadith and its narrators. He had a treasure in his library of rare manuscripts of Hadith, Tafsir, and narrators (Rijaal). His yearning was such that he had copists busy in copying new manuscripts from manuscripts of west and east, Egypt and Shaam, Qustantiniyah (Turkey). He (rah) was a follower of the path of the Salaf and was distinguished in knowledge and action” -Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The quote you shared is from a self published website. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whilst working on the article I too found the source, but felt it didn't amount to significant coverage and was written in a hagiographic tone. Theroadislong (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources are allowed to be hagiographic. The point is that multiple sources are commenting on the subject. Jeraxmoira, meanwhile, is applying strictly western values to a Pakastani publishing company, which seems unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if you have checked it completely. It is posted by an 'admin' and there are no sources/ references to what is written on that website apart from his son's autobiography, "as mentioned by Shaykh Muhibullah in his auto biography present in “Bahrul Ulum” p 41". Their Facebook page is linked to an individual. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked sockpuppet

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

the number 1 reference and number 6 reference prove these article as well. Please take a look thank you so much SaneFlint (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I disagree with the deletion. I've added more references, including some in Urdu. I'm open to assisting with any issues and suggest using Google Translate for the non-English content to confirm.

I'm really trying hard to expend the great Wikipedia community to our region more closely thank you SaneFlint (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above should be interpreted as an opinion to Keep the article. The editor lacks experience with our processes. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's collaborate to ensure clarity and find a resolution that works for all. SaneFlint (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment: ~~I prefer not to vote as I've been extensively involved in this article, but~~ I'd like to raise some points for other editors to consider. Here is my source assessment.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://archive.org/details/6.syedAhsan	Journal entry			✔ Yes
https://archive.org/details/SufiSaintsAndStatePowerThePirsOfSind18431947BySarahAnsari		~~WP:RAJ British author and publisher~~		✘ No
https://www.aleeqaz.org/index.php/aleeqaz/article/view/140			Has no mention of BDP	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/YaadERaftaganByShaykhSyedSulaimanNadvir.a/page/n107/mode/2up			?	? Unknown
https://www.salafiri.com/biography-shaikh-muhibullah-shah-ar-rashidi-as-sindhi-1415h/		It looks like it has been copied from a library entry of an essay with no references backing the claims. [81]		✘ No
https://archive.org/details/MajallahBahrulUloomMuhaddisUlAsarNoMuhibullahShahRashdi_201502/page/n113/mode/2up			Not about BDP	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The article mentions that the BDP is notable for its connection to the Khilafat Movement, but I couldn't find any information on the Khilafat Movement Wikipedia page or in the articles linked to it.
Lead mentions that he is an Islamic scholar but a WP:BEFORE on Google Books, scholar, JSTOR and newspaper returns with 0 results almost and I am not able to find primary sources of his works as well.

At this point [82] (not the assessment table above), Sources 1,2 and 4 are the same. 3 is unreliable per WP:RAJ and has no sigcov. 5 Only mentions BDP's father. 6 passes if someone can verify it. 8 is about BDP's son and not BDP themselves. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: while I agree with you on SIGCOV, I can't see how the book written in 1992 by Sarah F. D. Ansari, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London could possibly be considered unreliable under WP:RAJ. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point I am trying to make is that any source that talks about an event/BLP during the Raj era should be peer reviewed Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, according to the Wikipedia biography of the author, it was reviewed by Michel Boivin (CNRS, Paris) in the Bulletin Critique Des Annales Islamologiques in 1998 and by Seema Alavi in The Indian Economic & Social History Review in 1993. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have updated the table, thank you! Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and India. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: @Fahads1982 and Faismeen: as members of Category:Translators ur-en with recent activity. Notability in this AfD may hinge on the first reference in the article, which is a book written in Urdu. Would you be able to check the references and establish whether there is WP:SIGCOV? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The article does its subject no favours - it begins "Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi was an 19th century Islamic scholar" but the next section says he was born in 1896. The quote in the "death" section is mangled to make no sense. What were his actual achievements, beyond running a (private?) library? The Sarah Ansari book Sufi Saints and State Power: the Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947 (Cambridge, 1992) ought to be an excellent RS, bang on this very obscure area, but it is only used to ref the litigation with his brother. He has no article in any other language. Khilafat Movement lists two other books, from BRILL and Columbia, that ought to be RS & very much on this topic. Does he appear in either? Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've linked to him at Pir Jhando, where he seems to be mentioned (in a rather longer version of his name). Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A search on Sufi Saints and State Power for the subject and his father returns nothing apart from the litigation. Same on the Columbia book as well! Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References like 1 and 2/6 are key sources in a urdu language, offering insights into his work and life. Sarah FD's book primarily centers on his father and a Privy Court case against him, SaneFlint (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: @Mar4d: as a currently active editor who had added themselves to Wikipedia:Translators_available#Urdu-to-English: Notability in this AfD may hinge on several Urdu references in the article. Would you be able to check them to establish whether there is WP:SIGCOV? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mar4d hasn't edited for 11 days, so I have gone ahead and accessed the first source (which most of the references rely on) through the Wikipedia Library, allowing me to download the 12 page PDF. I tried uploading it to Google Translate, which has a document translation facility, but this didn't work because the Urdu text is an image - it needs to be OCRed. I have been able to use Azure AI document intelligence to extract the Arabic script, and then used the translation facilities in Microsoft Word to translate the whole document. There are plenty mentions of the subject in the text - from what I can tell, most of the 12 pages of text is about him. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked sockpuppet

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Could someone review references 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7? They contain crucial information mainly written in Urdu. Additionally, for more insights, consider searching for "Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi" سید احسان اللہ شاہ راشدی in Urdu, as there is an article on Urdu Wikipedia. Many websites also use his name in Urdu and Sindhi. It will help for more deeper results on Google as well. Thanks.🙂

سید احسان اللہ شاہ راشدی SaneFlint (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: What may make a difference to the outcome of this discussion is the publication on Commons of two files, currently displayed in the article. I am unable to translate them at all. Thus I present them without further comment, save that the author of the article states that they are part of a tribute, read out in 1923, to the subject of the article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked sockpuppet

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Timtrent: If you have the Google Translate app or Microsoft Translator on your smartphone, with the app open you can point your camera at your PC screen and it will translate the text from Urdu into English. Good luck understanding the result though, given the lack of context! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It says Things from Pir Rushdullah Shah Rashdi are now transfered to Ihsanullah aka Fazalullah. he's now a sajadah Nashin. A successor etc Some praising qasida with mentions of Darul Rashad Madirsah being first to be established in Sind and mentions about his jamaat etc hope it helps 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leters are NOT reliable independent sources and photographs of them are even less reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is absolutely correctly stated. I feel, though, it may shed some light into the reality. It is an interesting artefact, but not a reliable one as far as we are concerned. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True. It just shed lights on a topic. I again request everyone to focus on references especially urdu ones to be checked. REF 1 was confirmed/ checked by @Curb Safe Charmer I hope other as ref 2 and 5 6 7 etc will be checked and confirmed too thanks 😊 SaneFlint (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have yet to check that the statements cited to reference 1 are verifiable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmation was about subject name being mentioned or being there. 🙂

Please try to verify them your precious time will be appreciated 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like the discussion is ongoing regarding notability being established by Urdu-language references, so relisting to give more time to examine and discuss this as consensus as it stands is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Role in Khilafat Movement [83] p38-39, Only the father's name of the subject is mentioned during the establishment of the Sindh Provincial Khilafat Committee. Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked sockpuppet

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi I think there is a misunderstandings on this mentioned pdf, Pir Ihsanullah Shah is known as Pir Jhandey or Pir of Jhando as well, Sames term For his father is used but here you can see https://ibb.co/ckV9FPP Pir Turab Ali Shah is second name of Rushidullah Shah he's mentioned on it and also Pir Jhandey Shah which term is also used for Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi, more about his achievements are mentioned in a reference nnumber1.

You can confirm Pir Jhandey Wala term being used for Ihsanullah in a reference number 1 page number 10, hope it helps 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
p39 reads It was presided over by Pir Syed Abu Turab Muhammad Rashdullah Shah, Popularly known as Pir Jhandey Waley. At this point, I am wondering how "Pir Jhandey Walay" is being used for both the subject and his father. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
his father and himself the subject both were known by same slogan Pir Jhandey Wala or Pir of jhando. Here you can see https://ibb.co/QbYR7bs reference number 1 page number 10, mentions same name Pir Jhandey. Also one thing is worth noting that in a pdf it says Pir Abu Turab Shah rashdi and Pir of Jhandey Shah attended but in a 39th page Pir Jhandey Shah is term used for Pir Rushdullah Aka Pir Abu Turab which was a second name of Rushdullah Shah as well.🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Misunderstandings are not uncommon, particularly given language subjects differences. It's understandable that English speakers may find certain nuances confusing. Moreover, could you kindly verify references for verification? Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.🙂🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
two pictures I had uploaded on a page were 100 years older were removed. Claim was that picture doesn't contain subject name. Here is a translation which shows subject name on first - https://ibb.co/p4ZS4jd

I know translations are annoying but some words are worth noticing 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. SaneFlint, a significant contributor to both the article and the discussion above, has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per my previous comment and source assessment above. Events mentioned in the article are merely notable, there are no other sources to verify it and its vaguely supported by the major contributor's word/ translations. There are instances of them trying to add unsourced content and deliberately introducing factual errors on quoted statements (discussion is on their talk page). This situation discredits their translations, particularly because we lack other Sindhi language editors to verify the information at this point. Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current consensus is still unclear, but relisting to see if a consensus emerges. The sockpuppetry block of a major contributor to this AFD and the article itself may change the arguments presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Just not enough in RS to build an article. I get how passionate people are about this, but I don't see notability with the sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source table above only has one good source, a few more and we'd be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Oaktree lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per Oaktree b, lack in-depth coverage and having no information in books also, i searched about the subject. I searched in urdu “ احسان اللہ شاہ راشدی” also to have a look at urdu books but found nothing. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 Campeonato Paulista[edit]

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

Empty, boiler-plate template for upcoming sports league. Not referenced -- the single reference is undefined. Problems with WP:FUTURE. Mikeblas (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Very notable tournament. Furthermore, references were added in the article. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - needs improvement, not deletion. Giant Snowman 16:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Only a month away from the competition, and there is a whole serious of these, so I don't quite get this current nomination, feels as if you didn't do an ounce of research or WP:BEFORE, Govvy (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – Non-sense AfD Svartner (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep whilst people shouldn't be creating speculative articles months/years before sports events happen, that isn't the case here. It's an article with decent levels of information and sources about a league that starts next month. Perfectly acceptable article about a future event. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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