< December 08 December 10 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Love (Karl Wolf song)[edit]

Ghetto Love (Karl Wolf song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected PROD, poorly sourced, non notable song. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to North Macedonia–Ukraine relations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of North Macedonia, Kyiv[edit]

Embassy of North Macedonia, Kyiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are not even about the embassy but merely confirm previous ambassadors. No indepth coverage of the actual embassy. Fails GNG LibStar (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 23:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella García-Manzo[edit]

Isabella García-Manzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than the 2023 pageant, there is no evidence for notability. It is very likely that the page was created/edited for self-promotion. TanookiKoopa (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Rublamb, would you mind sharing those sources here so we can analyze them? Would like to take a look at them. Let'srun (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:: Here you go. Some may be worthless, but I am sure of the top few. Rublamb (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on significance of press coverage alone, seems notable enough for me. Mistamystery (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue source doesn't count as it is an interview, and the other coverage posted has to do with the pageant itself. Thus, due to WP:BIO1E, I have to go with a Weak Delete on this one, but if coverage extending beyond the pageant can be found, I'd be willing to change my vote. Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:INTERVIEWS says that interviews "can be considered as evidence of notability", especially when published in a reliable source. It is pretty compeling that this is the cover story of a major magazine. Rublamb (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. With a sockpuppet's !vote being struck, and no rebuttal to Highking's !vote despite a further 7 days of relisting, I find that their contribution is the most instructive here and am closing as consensus existing to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapyd (company)[edit]

Rapyd (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing much has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapyd. Almost same sources and they're press releases about acquisitions and fundraises. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rapyd's actually a pretty major player in Finance and Technology in Israel. They're Israels most valuable private company as of last year and they have been mentioned in multiple articles in publications like the Economist due to their role in expanding business relations across the Middle East. They were one of the first Israeli companies to open an office in Dubai after the Abraham Accords and play a significant role in that region in terms of building business and cultural relationships. Their Wikipedia page needs some improvements for sure. I'll take a crack at it. I was actually thinking about writing a page for them and never got around to it, so I see what I can do. Word-Oh (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here at AfD, we don't care about "coverage" that only relies on content provided by the company and their execs. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria - see below. HighKing++ 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with @MaxnaCarta the Forbes, Insider, TechCrunch and CNBC meets WP:NCORP. Article could be improved though of course

Infomemoh (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)sockpuppet[reply]
None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None contain the in-depth independent content required for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Currently Highking's comment is the most persuasive, relisting to see if it is either supported by others or alternatively rebutted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Fouladivanda[edit]

Omid Fouladivanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, he is just a volleyball referee in Iranian league with no much coverage. this article was deleted before but recreated now with more or less the same material which makes me think it's created either by the same person or the same organization. Sports2021 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This was already deleted once as a soft-deletion then recreated, so I don't want to soft-delete again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not seeing evidence of notability in the press announcements, quotes, primary coverage of an auto accident, and lists of names among the Persian sources.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Mehra[edit]

Amit Mehra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor or model. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 23:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Nature, People and Animals (Romania)[edit]

Party for Nature, People and Animals (Romania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization was established just one week ago and has yet to receive substantial coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 19:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The party, although created a week ago, has appeared in more press articles than other parties that have a Wikipedia page (e.g. NOW Party or Volt Romania). My proposal would be to stop this deletion process. 81.196.240.159 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasip Pektas[edit]

Hasip Pektas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 23:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See his CV. Shoerack (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Morocco women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marwa Hassani[edit]

Marwa Hassani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Morocco women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps its best to merge with an existing list of football players. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Looking at her FR page (w:fr:Marwa Hassani), she has gone from being on the roster of notable clubs to being on a 3rd-division regional club that is amateur. She has received 5 call-ups to her national team, which made the knockout rounds of the 2023 Women's World Cup, but she was not on the roster and does not appear to be in solid contention to make the roster again. If she's not a professional player, international player, nor notable for any other reason, I think better to delete and if her career takes off again (she's only 21) we could reintroduce the page. I'm not sure a redirect would add any insight if someone happened to be looking specifically for Hassani, but that would be my second choice I suppose. Denzera (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted via discussion in 2018, 22 years after the subject's death. However, based on the comments made in the discussion, it sounds like the article was not as well developed as it is now, though it was noted that the sources were basically retelling the same information. At present, the article contains 6 sources. 5/6 are in Urdu/Arabic, so if we have people to help verify the sources, that'd be great. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's great to bring it to the lights. The subject is very notable and well known around the sub continent and middle East. Everything i have written in an article is supported by urdu references, which mentions all things i have said. Please just verify them it was deleted due to not enough attention from the first creator. As i have built it from scrach, im willing to assist with any solution that brings it into light. Thank you🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has article on urdu sindhi and arabic Wikipedia. Judt an reminder thank you. I hope editors will look into those references to verify #Notability SaneFlint (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above should be interpreted as an opinion to Keep the article. SaneFlint (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully editors will be able to understand the subject and translate its references,
that will really help i believe.
My opinion is to
  • Keep
Thanks. Had to post again as it wasnt properly mentioned SaneFlint (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've included additional references to enhance the article. Verification of Urdu and Arabic content is needed to clarify misunderstandings from the previous creator. I've taken the initiative to rebuild the article, and ongoing updates will be made. Seeking assistance from seniors to review references before voting. Your support is appreciated, I feel afd will enhance the article. Which is much needed development🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No pass of WP:Prof. Delete unless sources can be found for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Having articles on other language Wikipedias is irrelevant, they have a very different inclusion criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 23:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amador of Portugal[edit]

Amador of Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page only has one source, and I cannot find any others. Literally every claim in the article about his life and legend is unsourced. In fact, the one source that the article has states that "Nothing is known of him". Di (they-them) (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Esa[edit]

Lou Esa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable boxer, no IOC recognized games medals or world championship fights. Jeanette the new woman Martnn (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. David Eppstein's contribution is the most compelling, and that view is shared by a sufficient number of his colleagues here in this debate to form a consensus to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey O[edit]

Jeffrey O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another probable COI/paid article about someone who's vaguely notable for being an 'educator/motivational speaker'. Ref bombed with articles that anyone can get made for them. Doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A formal source analysis would be very helpful if an editor wanted to put one together.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz's last relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Although the article needs some work, there are several reliable sources in the article. These sources are clearly reliable and have been marked as such by Wikipedia for several years. The idea that all the major sources in the article marked as reliable by Wikipedia per WP:NGRS are all no longer reliable is strange and illogical. This is painting with a very broad brush. Should we then delete all articles on Wikipedia, especially the ones from this individual’s country of origin whenever someone doesn’t like the sources that have always been accepted by the community as reliable, or the writing style of the publications. Also, saying that all the articles are paid promotions is speculative and illogical. There is no basis for this assumption. Also, all the articles are not similar other than the fact that some of them are profiling the same individual. All the sources provide significant coverage about the subject as required by WP:SIGCOV and are reliable as per WP:NGRS. The subject was listed as one of the 10 most influential Nigerians in diaspora by Pulse Nigeria. He was recognized as one of the 10 most influential people in Hospitality by The Nation. He was also named one of the top 25 International Newsmakers of 2021 which is enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. There is no rational basis for deleting this article. Most of the arguments are in favor of keeping the page. Why should the page not be kept and improved, like so many other pages on Wikipedia? Why the push to delete this page?Cruzdoze (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — Cruzdoze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to do anything. Merging or renaming or anything similar can be explored on the talk page of the article subsequent to this discussion finishing. Daniel (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Lithuania[edit]

Swedish Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article essentially repeats what is already said in Union of Kėdainiai. Besides, the very use of the term Swedish Lithuania is WP:FRINGE, occurring only in Kotljarchuk. It is also incorrect in principle because Lithuania was not incorporated into Sweden, but some of the nobility entered into a personal union with Sweden. The article generally rubs against WP:HOAX. Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We are dealing with an entity that did exist and whose existence is proven in one way or another by many reliable sources (all sources talking about Union of Kėdainiai prove the existence of this political entity). As @SeriousThinker already said, we have articles that deal with even non-existent but possible unions from a similar time period, so I refuse to say that an actual union that did exist does not deserve its own article. We should also remind ourselves that events that might hold significance for one group of people might be irrelevant for others and so it seems to me that this event is generally more important for Lithuanians than for Poles (unsurprisingly so, because this concerns only Lithuania and not Poland).
However, just like @Piotrus wrote, I would change the name to e.g. Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657) or something similar.
BTW, this is mentioned in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania article in the following sentence, so it's clearly not an irrelevant event:
In 1655, Lithuania unilaterally seceded from Poland, declared the Swedish King Charles X Gustav as the Grand Duke of Lithuania and fell under the protection of the Swedish Empire. However, by 1657 Lithuania was once again a part of the Commonwealth following the Lithuanian revolt against the Swedes. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Let's be honest, the existence of an entity called "Swedish Lithuania" is mentioned only by Kotljarchuk. Other sources say that some Lithuanian lords, headed by Janusz Radzwiłł, concluded a union with Sweden on behalf of the entire GDL on October 20. And there is already an article about it on Wikipedia: Union of Kėdainiai. So there is no need for a separate article with essentially the same content. Marcelus (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference though. No article makes it seem as if there was no entity to speak of and the treaties never had any sort of true impact when, in reality, they did, albeit it was short-lived. There's definitely a similiarity problem here but it doesn't mean that the article itself has no purpose. Overlapping information on Wikipedia is not an unusual thing either. When we make distinctions, such as List of monarchs of X country and List of heads of state of X country, the information can be fairly redundant but they exist because they focus on different things.
In addition, I would say the blame for similarity should be placed on the Union of Kėdainiai article as well because it covers more than it should — its main focus should be more on the negotiations and content of the treaty itself whereas Swedish Lithuania (or Grand Duchy of Lithuania) should focus more on partition of territories, actions of the administration and military feuds. In his book historian Adolfas Šapoka writes in greater detail about the policies of Magnus Gabriel De Le Gardie while governing, Lithuanian resistance and the Swedish defense in Lithuania — I'm not sure that Union Kėdainiai is a go-to article for such information I was considering publishing at some point. SeriousThinker (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main go to article is Deluge (history). Swedish Lithuania is basically third article on the same topic. Also it makes wrong impression as if Lithuania was established Swedish territory (compare Swedish Livonia), which defnitely wasn't. Marcelus (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a wrong impression though? According to Kontjarchuk, that's exactly what happened — Lithuania was established as a Swedish protectorate (they established themselves as a protectorate of the Swedish Crown). In addition, an article in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia also clearly states that Lithuania was a Swedish protectorate (Lietuva tapo Švedijos protektoratu — Lithuania became a protectorate of Sweden). SeriousThinker (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna.aero[edit]

Anna.aero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but I couldn't find that sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and to consider Owen's additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rossy Aguirre[edit]

Rossy Aguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She exists and has a career, but I couldn't establish that she is notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I find TimothyBlue's contribution the most compelling in a debate which didn't have a lot of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dumfries High School[edit]

Dumfries High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:GNG. There are a couple of stories about the redevelopment of its buildings, insufficient IMO per WP:ORGDEPTH which calls for greater than trivial coverage. There is no substantial, indepth coverage of the school. Guidelines at WP:NSCHOOL and the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay are noted. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This probably ended up here because of a bust-up over photos at the Teahouse. Someone inserted a photo of the teacher who some years ago faked the teacher-assessments of a large number of their pupils. In my view quite rightly, a teahouse visitor removed the photo as giving undue weight to a one-off BLP issue. They then questioned whether the headmaster's photo was okay, and I questioned heavily whether our treatment of the teacher who faked the results is fair. I have no particular desire to delete the article itself, but the "Events" part dealing with the faked results should go. This was not a particularly notable, or even unusual event, and there has been no coverage whatsoever since the time of her disciplinary hearing. Our text on the subject is possibly inaccurate (the number of faked results is disputed) and certainly misleading and less than neutral. Elemimele (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Source
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, interview with teacher, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth 1. Kobzar, Elina (1 November 2022). "New school proposals to go on display". Daily Record. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
Gov site, fails WP:IS, database page, fails WP:SIGCOV 2. ^ "Dumfries High School - Dumfries and Galloway Council". www.dumgal.gov.uk. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Temlett, Stephen (29 December 2022). "New high school construction plans to change". Daily Record. Retrieved 27 August 2023.
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ "Dumfries High School building at the 'end of life'". BBC News. 28 October 2020. Retrieved 27 August 2023.
About an individual, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ "QosFC: Legends - Billy Houliston". qosfc.com. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
About an individual, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ "From bedroom to Billboard". The Herald. Glasgow. 29 July 2015.
Keep votes provide no sources. BEFORE showed nothing but routine mill news and database records.  // Timothy :: talk  05:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find TimothyBlue's assessment of the sources convincing. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical[edit]

Concept Medical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO: Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Charlie (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of the sources are routine coverage, I can now see independent sources with significant coverage that VikingsKhan has found and helpfully integrated into the article. Receiving an award from the then-president is also highly notable. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The company has a lot of coverage by reliable sources. Provided two links with significant coverage about the company Outlook Business and Tampa News.
  2. The company developed the world's first Sirolimus-coated balloon known as Magic Touch, which received CE approval. It has been the subject of ongoing clinical studies in the United Kingdom, Italy and Brazil. It is also the most clinically studied Sirolimus Drug Coated Balloon (DCB) for PAD treatment.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323319118_Magic_Touch_preliminary_clinical_evidence_with_a_novel_Sirolimus_drug_coated_balloonhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/357084913_MagicTouch_PTA_Sirolimus_Coated_Balloon_for_Femoropopliteal_and_Below_the_Knee_Disease_Results_From_XTOSI_Pilot_Study_Up_To_12_Monthshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/346430511_Early_6_months_results_of_a_pilot_prospective_study_to_investigate_the_efficacy_and_safety_of_sirolimus_coated_balloon_angioplasty_for_dysfunctional_arterio-venous_fistulas_MAgicTouch_Intervention_Leahttps://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fig-1-Different-generations-of-drug-coated-balloons-DCBs-The-1-st-and-2-nd_fig1_322125982https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341769593_Mid-term_clinical_outcomes_from_use_of_Sirolimus_coated_balloon_in_coronary_intervention_data_from_real_world_population
  3. The Indian government gave it the National Technology Award, and it was the top medical device exporter in India.
  4. It's one of the top three manufacturers in Asia.
  5. The International Book of Records called it the ‘Fastest Growing Medical Device Company in the Indian Stent Market.

I will be incorporating all this valuable information and citing the sources to enhance the page.VikingsKhan (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VikingsKhan These research papers focus on a product, not the company. But, please feel welcome to update the page as you prefer and improve it to meet WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep: I have significantly enhanced the article by incorporating additional information and sources to highlight the company's notability

  1. It is the first and only company to develop the world's first sirolimus-drug coated balloon called MagicTouch. This product has earned the company widespread recognition and accolades. The media, both nationally and internationally, has extensively discussed this.[12][13][14]
  2. The product was granted the Breakthrough Device designation and IDE approvals from the USFDA for treating superficial femoral arteries (SFA).[15] Extensively studied globally in various clinical trials, such as the Eastbourne registry, Nanolute, and ongoing trials like Transform 1, Transform 2, Ginger, Titan, and Hybrid Bifurcation DEB.
  4. Dr. Martin Leon, founder of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and leads the IDE trials, said that the "FDA approval for the MAGICAL-SV clinical trial using the MagicTouch sirolimus-covered balloon with nanolute technology is a significant milestone in their ongoing effort to find the best therapy for managing patients with small vessel coronary obstructive disease."[16]
  6. The Indian Government has awarded the company the National Technology Award for its innovations in the cardiovascular space and drug delivery devices. It is Asia's largest producer of DCB and DES, and one of the top three medical device companies in India by market share.[17] In 2021-22, the company was the largest medical device exporter from India and given an award by the President Ram Nath Kovind. The International Book of Records named it the Fastest Growing Medical Device Company in the Indian Stent Market.[18]
  8. the company received a substantial $60 million funding from Kiran C Patel, a renowned cardiologist and businessman, specifically for conducting clinical studies on cardiac devices.[19]
  10. MagicTouch is currently the only globally approved sirolimus-coated balloon with CE certification and with extensive commercial usage in Europe, major markets of Asia and the Mid-Eastern markets. More than 100 thousand patients have been treated with MagicTouch SCB in these markets.[20]
  12. It is the most extensively studied sirolimus-coated balloon for peripheral artery disease (PAD) treatment and is the focus of ongoing clinical studies in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Brazil.[21][22]

I have also refined the sourcing and included additional sources that provide substantial coverage.[23][24] All these collectively highlight the company's notability and meets the NCORP.VikingsKhan (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This isn't the strongest consensus (due to lack of participation) but a delete consensus does narrowly exist for me. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Oppenheim[edit]

Richard Oppenheim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, i went searching around and found a few more sources to add to this article. one of which was The Guardian, the others might be questionable in their reliability. Overall, i think with the new sources that i found in just a few minutes, this is now a weak keep that meets the GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilipinas News[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pilipinas News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since October.

Previous AfD was closed when it was withdrawn when nominator was called out for starting too many AfDs, so it wasn't thoroughly discussed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elekeiroz[edit]

Elekeiroz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a Brazilian chemical company has only one source. A Google News search finds a couple press releases and nothing else. Wolfson5 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AS 1100[edit]

AS 1100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS3959, notability not established with substantive independent sources Reywas92Talk 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel, Grant County, Oklahoma[edit]

Bethel, Grant County, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First source says it was the name of a short-lived post office but not that it was a town/ghost town. Notability not established, not even in GNIS Reywas92Talk 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does appear in the George Shirk place names as a post office. Not a town. I’m the article creator but I think I does need to be taken down.
Delete DannonCool (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alhambra, Oklahoma[edit]

Alhambra, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First source unreliable, second says it was the name of a post office but not that it was a town/ghost town. Notability not established, not even in GNIS Reywas92Talk 20:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peart, California[edit]

Peart, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=fd736e5412ece54a732229b87e930c62 Reywas92Talk 20:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plumtree, California[edit]

Plumtree, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Back to the California bulk-creations. No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=1c6fd750f09a49579337f04f012ceff1 Reywas92Talk 20:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LAS Magazine[edit]

LAS Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several reasons why this page should get deleted: 1. Very outdated, website is most definitely defunct 2. its sources mainly link to itself (aka has non-primary sources issues) 3. issues already highlighted in 2010 regarding citations and personal essay Chchcheckit (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, quick note: per this archived page ([27]) dated 2013, LAS Magazine went on an "indefinite hiatus from daily publishing" on July 13, 2010. It remained unchanged in its state for several years afterwards, with the page now simply a blank screen.([28]) Chchcheckit (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see not general notability of the outdated magazine. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Ineligible for SOFT deletion, but there is no one supporting retention or providing any input. Star Mississippi 17:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland, Concordia Parish, Louisiana[edit]

Ashland, Concordia Parish, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "unincorporated community" lie. I cannot tell you what this is from any historical sources at all, except from the same hypsometry that tells us about a nail near to wherever Black Hawk, Louisiana (AfD discussion) was, in this case from an 1885 USACE survey. We know all about a granite post in a hole in the ground, for Ashland: "[Benchmark 54] is top of granite post buried in the ground on the left of the steps leading to the front entrance of Mr. William G. Walton's residence on Ashland Plantation near Bougere P. O., Louisiana. The top of stone is about 3 inches above ground. Elevation, 23m.5622 It's not in Lippincott's at all, which rules out any sort of town or village or even a post office, although the smart money would be on Bougere being the post office in any case. The only Ashland that the SPC's 1890 History of Louisiana has, as an incidental mention in brackets, is in Red River Parish across the state. This one in Concordia is listed in a contemporary directory of Louisiana plantations, and that's it. This, too, has been lost to history. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ineligible for Soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The issue of the spelling can be handled editorially. There is consensus to keep the improved content. Star Mississippi 03:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk, Louisiana[edit]

Black Hawk, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another GNIS mess lie, created by a sock-puppeteer, that we've been telling the world for 10 years. There's no "unincorporated community", a phrase that has been debased of any meaning, here. The 1880 Lippincott's confirms that this was a post office. Not a post-town nor even a post-village: a post office. And one that is non-existent in any history books that I can find. Ironically, once one knows how the GNIS is badly constructed by basically calling every single building a "populated place", it becomes apparent from the GNIS itself that this is a post office, as it lists it twice in two separate records: once as a building taken from a building on a map and once as a post office taken from a list of post offices. Surprise! The building is the post office. When they say that the GNIS removes duplications, it is a lie. I cannot find any history of Black Hawk railway depot nor Black Hawk plantation, either. I only know that they exist at all because a hypsometrist measured various precisely described nails and pieces of wire (I kid you not!) near to them. Simply, no-one has documented these things and they are undocumented dots on maps now. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not a community, no coverage in any source other than GNIS, never a recognized populated place, and a redirect is pointless because nobody would think to search for such a place on WP, and there is nothing that could be said about it in the target article anyway. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Concordia Parish, Louisiana. The information given in the article convinces me that this is a place (broadly speaking), with some at least local recognition, but we can't say much more than that. And when we have to rely on OR just to determine whether our sources are all talking about the same place, we are in no position to have a standalone article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Muthukrishnan[edit]

S. Muthukrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M. Muthukrishnan[edit]

M. Muthukrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There is a general consensus that the topic meets the general notability guideline, and that the preexisting biases in the article can be resolved. But this consensus to keep is dependent on the title reflecting a more neutral tone; those in favor of deletion are surely correct that the article should not exist under the present title. Since an independent move discussion is now underway, however, no move will be made as a result of this AfD. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet all of Wikipedia's five general notability guidelines, which determines if a topic deserves a standalone article:

1- Presumed: article is an indiscriminate collection of information; a collection of small pieces of information from different sources, resulting in troublesome original research
2- Significant coverage there are no independent, reliable and secondary sources addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
3- Reliable: sources used in the article are either unreliable or mediocre, and in both cases do not deal with the topic directly.
4- Secondary: Most sources are not secondary, many of them primary reporting on violent incidents
5- Independent: Most sources are not independent of the subject, many of them are Israeli news website and academic institutions.
This article is a clear example of original research with questionable references, it should be deleted to maintain adherence to Wikipedia's strict guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • !Voting now. TNT delete. I took another look through the article and I don't think what we have is salvageable. The article does have sources, but they're cobbled together (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR) to form a misleading narrative. To give just one example, there's a whole original research paragraph suggesting that the reason why a large percent of young Palestinians have post traumatic stress disorder is because of the glorification of the concept of martyrdom, as opposed to everything else that's been going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Is the topic of martyrdom in Palestinian society notable? Quite possibly. But is this material acceptable? Absolutely not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being moved by the arguments that it is not appropriate to have an article about martyrdom in the culture of one specific nation as if it is a uniquely Palestinian phenomenon. I reread the article and it really does come across more as an essay that tries to persuade the reader that a core tenant of Palestinian culture is the brainwashing of one's own child into sacrificing themselves as a martyr. The article at no point mentions that martyrdom of the deceased is common on the Israeli side (or across other cultures as well), or that the broader Israel-Palestine conflict (as opposed to some essential quality of the Palestinian people) could be contributing to the phenomenon of martyrdom. This page only serves to dehumanize a nation. The basic Martyrdom article does a much better job at describing the topic and there is no need to split it into POV forks. I support TNT at a minimum as a middle-ground position between deleting and keeping, but my preference is now to delete with prejudice against recreation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article is structured and coherent.
  2. Sources are reliable: the largest group of sources is that of scholarly articles in respectful journals. To count a few: Journal of Political Ideologies, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Social Research, Security Studies, Terrorism and Political Violence... These are clearly secondary sources, and they make up the foundation of the article. There are some citations of global media such as CNN and AP News
  3. Some sources are Israeli. Counting, they are definitely not the majority. -GidiD (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like some of the tone of the current piece in places and would sift through it to ensure it is properly neutral where needed, but not enough to eliminate the piece altogether imo.
Also - *perhaps* this could be folded into the martyrdom page, but I'm concerned as to how short and cursory that page is at present. Mistamystery (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT - as variously described above by others, this is a shoddily constructed, attack-like article cobbled together out of dated, weak scholarship, news and other lesser sources to present a clearly POV narrative under an equally deficient title. Far removed from an encyclopedic build of a topic from the best sources -- composed as it is in the reverse of such a manner -- unpicking the issues would be a more monumental task than starting it afresh, hence TNT. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Hatina, M. (2005). Theology and power in the Middle East: Palestinian martyrdom in a comparative perspective. Journal of Political Ideologies, 10(3), 241–267. doi:10.1080/13569310500244289
    2. Meir Litvak (2010) “Martyrdom is Life”: Jihad and Martyrdom in the Ideology of Hamas, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33:8, 716–734, DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2010.494170
    3. Daphne Burdman (2003) Education, indoctrination, and incitement: Palestinian children on their way to martyrdom, Terrorism and Political Violence, 15:1, 96-123, DOI: 10.1080/09546550312331292977
    4. Loadenthal, M. (2014). Reproducing a Culture of Martyrdom: The Role of the Palestinian Mother in Discourse Construction, Transmission, and Legitimization. In D. Cooper & C. Phelan (Eds.), Motherhood and war: International perspectives (pp. 183, 197). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Bilal Tawfiq Hamamra (2020) Mothers of martyrs: Rethinking Shakespeare’s Volumnia’s collective motherhood from a Palestinian perspective, Psychodynamic Practice, 26:3, 248–259, DOI: 10.1080/14753634.2020.1762715
    6. Franke, L. (2014, April). The Discursive Construction of Palestinian istishhādiyyāt within the Frame of Martyrdom. In Martyrdom in the Modern Middle East (pp. 190–191, 193–195, 200). Ergon-Verlag
The article would need rewrite to be more comprehensive, accurate, unbiased, and neutral, and more scholarly references would need to be used. There has been research published on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from social psychology perspectives, as well.
Also I was not canvassed; my Wiki email is disabled. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bilal Tawfiq Hamamra's Mothers of martyrs: Rethinking Shakespeare’s Volumnia’s collective motherhood from a Palestinian perspective, is a study written by a drama and English lecturer! The study covers how Hamamra presents Shakespeare’s Coriolanus - and specifically Coriolanus' mother Volumnia - to modern Palestinian students. It is the main source for most of the 'Perceptions of motherhood' section (though much claimed to be sourced to the study isn't actually in it and is WP:SYNTHED so as to appear sourced).
The study is an interesting 'take' on parallels between a Shakespeare play/society and a modern situation, but PLEASE - a scholarly sources on the topic of Palestinian mother's attitude to martyrdom. Would we cite Hamlet scholars to support modern Danish societal attitudes? Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s interesting. I wonder how it even got published in ‘Psychodynamic Practice’. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be making a huge contribution to ‘Psychodynamic Practice’ or to the teaching of Shakespeare to Palestinians. That doesn't make it a meaningful study of ' 'Perceptions of motherhood' in Palestinian society - certainly not THE meaningful study around which to craft a section. Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just on the Suicide attack Wiki page, and it has a section on martyrdom: “Clerics have supported suicide attacks largely in connection with the Palestinian issue. Prominent Sunni cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi had previously supported such attacks by Palestinians in perceived defense of their homeland as heroic and an act of resistance.
[1]
”
Wiki page:
Suicide attack#Support for "martyrdom operations"
Thank you, Makeandtoss, for opening this discussion. If this issue actually has any validity based on reality and research, to take a leaf out of your book, it probably shouldn’t be censored. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if anyone is interested, here is a book I found by Nasser Abufarha that touches on martyrdom in Palestinian resistance: https://www.theleftberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The_Making_of_a_Human_Bomb_An_Ethnograph.pdf
It does appear there is encouragement of martyrdom culture through amaliyyat fida’iyya (operations of self-sacrifice), al-’amal al- istishhadi (the work of martyrdom), and istishhad (dying in martyrdom) that arises from social psychological, cultural and political reasons, but the book focuses more on the historical and political backdrop of Israeli occupation. It probably could be used to provide a more balanced perspective/article on martyrdom in Palestine. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ David Bukay (2008). From Muhammad to Bin Laden: Religious and Ideological Sources of the Homicide Bombers Phenomenon. Transaction Publishers. pp. 295–. ISBN 978-0-7658-0390-0. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
Delete or TNT and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. Martyrdom is a major aspect of Palestinian life under Israeli occupation, but it isn't unusual for oppressed peoples to """glorify""" their martyrs. The article itself insults and blames Palestinians for something they can't control (oftentimes being their only chance to better their situation). It also explains the motives of martyrdom as simply being due to the Palestinians' religion, an absolutely childish reduction. Salmoonlight (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main argument for deleting the article seems to be that every society glorifies its fallen heroes. This is true, but this doesn't mean that it's not a valid topic for an article. Each society does it in a different way and these differences are notable. To take the Soviet Union as a example (it's more distant in time and won't be as controversial, I hope), the fallen soldiers (real or fabricated) were definitely glorified, especially if they took many enemies with them. On the other hand, the violence against civilians was not usually celebrated (unless the said civilians were various enemies of the people - it's complicated) and instead was often denied. Also, the major difference is the role of religion vs ideology. Alaexis¿question? 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the sources? The paragraph I used as an example of the article's problematic nature cites two sources. Let's take a cursory glance at what we're citing. The first is from one Daphne Burdman of the "politically neo-conservative" think tank Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Just from that information alone I sincerely hope I don't have to describe how Burdman is not offering neutral or reliable work from an academic perspective. I would argue that Burdman's article titled (in all caps) "HATRED OF THE JEWS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON IN PALESTINIAN SOCIETY" with the opening abstract stating that the Palestinian nation hates the Jews for three reasons - 1) because the Quran tells them to, 2) because of extremist Islamic militancy, and 3) because Yasser Arafat indoctrinated all the children to do so - immediately disqualifies any and all work of hers on the encyclopedia. Let's maybe not use ahistorical rants from a hard right pro-settlement think tank as an "academic" source on an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is that too much to ask? Am I being too picky by wanting better sources than that?
The second source, from what I can find, doesn't even seem to mention what the article cites it for. Granted, for all I know it might be buried somewhere deep in the full version which costs $60 to view. Given the tragic state of the rest of the article, I wouldn't bet money on that, figuratively or literally in this case.
Take a look at the rest of the sources, too. I'll preface this by saying: yes, we at least have a couple sources that should be fine, there's one from CNN and one from AP, no qualms with that. But sources that pass WP:RS for either notability or indeed verifiability are few and far between, and sufficiently neutral ones are near impossible to come by. Is anyone really going to argue that the Zionist Organization of America is a "neutral, reliable, secondary source"? The article also cites the "World Security Network", an organization I can find no information on, and whose website I can't access because Firefox flagged their website as (ironically) a security risk. Any analysis of the sources that goes beyond merely skimming them will reveal that the citations are a mix of heavily biased think tanks, foreign ministries, random miscellaneous potentially-unsafe websites, and various Israeli media outlets, the lattermost somehow being the least unreliable or biased ones in the article despite many of them being from a conservative slanted publication. It's not enough for a citation to "look academic" or be on a research website, that alone does not make it RS. It could have all the superficial professionalism in the world, that doesn't change that it very well might be from an incredibly disreputable and biased think-tank, organization, and/or author. This dumpster-fire of an article does not meet RS by any stretch of the imagination.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that your arguments re the reliability of sources are based on the policy. If Daphne Burdman's article were published on the site of the think-tank she works for, I would agree with you, but it was published in Terrorism and Political Violence peer-reviewed journal.
As for the second example, I couldn't find it in the article as well and tagged the sentence.
The Zionist Ogranization of America is clearly biased, but it doesn't mean they are unreliable (WP:BIASED). In one case when it's cited, it's easy to confirm that Yahya Ayyash street exists using google maps (https://maps.app.goo. gl/fHQMUobM4wZVX9sE8 - remove a space in the URL, for some reason it blocks the original one). This is the archived version of the WSN website, so at the very least it's not a hoax.
The article could definitely use some work but overall the topic is notable and the sourcing is not stellar but fixable. Alaexis¿question? 20:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that even a clearly biased organization can be used in certain contexts for verifiability, but this also puts the notability of the material into question. See NPOV § Bias in sources: This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. If all we're looking to establish is verifiability, we might as well use Google Maps directly. But if we want to establish that there is due weight to mention individual examples of an individual being made a martyr, we're going to need better sources.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, if no one except for the Zionist Organization of America mentions it, this particular event shouldn't be in the article. Possibly it's better to merge the notable individual events into the relevant sections. Alaexis¿question? 10:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do like the suggestion to broaden the scope to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict instead of singling out a nationality like the current version does. That would certainly help.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that broadening the scope would be a good direction for this article. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. If the fate of this page is not obvious after the closure of the pending requested move, then the page may return to AfD. But the outcome of the requested move, in this case, must be determined first. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howard River (disambiguation)[edit]

Howard River (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TWODABS situation. Could not find any other Howard Rivers to disambiguate. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hinemoatū River is shorter and has a much lower population nearby than Howard River. Therefore it should be regarded as at least as important as the Australian river which shares its alternative name. Johnragla (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hinemoatū River is shorter and has a much lower population nearby than Howard River. Therefore it should be regarded as at least as important as the Australian river which shares its alternative name. Johnragla (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two topics and one is primary, hatnotes should be used instead of a dab page. see WP:TWODABS. (t · c) buidhe 19:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The related RM is still open, although there's enough opposition there that a successful move appears unlikely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kento Masuda[edit]

Kento Masuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The wp:ja page was recently deleted, citing "non-notable musician". At a glance, the page is filled out, has lots of references, yet is clearly promotional in tone. Two editors having made a huge proportion of the edits are fairly clearly SPA/promotional; one has a username in the Georgian alphabet, currently blocked for paid editing, the other (newer) has a username in the Hebrew alphabet. There is a whole web of articles, including Kentoverse, Loved One (album), All in the Silence, perhaps more. Everything I look at is sourced to blogs, unknown "Awards" sites, and similar ("We sell fame and fortune", one said). Apart from the music, he claims notability as a "European nobleman", but this refers to well-known paid-for bogus titles. There are also plenty of photographs of him "with" various supposedly famous people, but see the deletion discussion for Klaes Nobel. I suggest that anyone wanting to suggest Keep, should start with any single event, album or whatever, and investigate the chain of references. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michitaro, Nuraa.sinora, Loriendrew, Kaori Muraji, and Tal Essen: Pinging other editors who have made significant edits to this or the related article Hiroko Tsuji (musician). Imaginatorium (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some valid BLP content once all the above-type promotional tone is removed, the glaring MOS issues (flag icons, etc.) and the list of purchased titles and honours is excised. The album articles may not meet NALBUM either, as they are non-charting with only questionably notable awards. What will be left will be very stubby and would barely meet GNG (does not meet WP:MUSICBIO). May review further in a day or two.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution. I wasn't sure how to approach this: I could have gone through removing claims one by one until nothing is left, but that is a lot of work. I think in the end it is better to leave the article as is; then editors can try tracking any one of the claims that might look plausible. It appears to me that the whole article has been generated by a bad-faith process; it is not just a few baseless flaky claims, there are chains of references all ending up at paid-for or blog sites. And in the end, if stubified it would just say "Kento Masuda is a Japanese pianist" with no sources, which might lead to endless effort hunting for such sources. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and I don't see an additional relist bringing on anything other than split input Star Mississippi 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry[edit]

Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant, independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is substantial disagreement over the quality of the sources. I'll note that this often happens with sources that appear to be interviews which are not always disallowed as RS, it depends on the surrounding content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which is why I didn't use IDONTLIKEIT. Obscure newspapers I said, and obscure newspapers I meant: The Dothan Eagle and The Anniston Star are both in Alabama and both only publish three times a week, The Johnson City Press gets no press, and College and Magnolia is a publication about the Auburn Tigers. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So? All of that is irrelevant to determining the notability of this subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of that first reference is "UAB-Auburn on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". On its way, not there, so not particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Classic WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL material. I could write articles for various newspapers claiming that Cardi B and MC Lyte "on their way to becoming full-blown rap rivals" but that doesn't mean WP should have an article called "Cardi B–MC Lyte rap rivalry". This stuff is just fancruft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, you both ignore the rest of my comment and all the other sources... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis by User:Conyo14
Source assessment by User:Conyo14
[29] SB Nation is a BLP source, but the author (Brian Spurlock) is a USA Today sports author. Green tickY
[30] Local newspaper separate from Auburn or Birmingham Green tickY
[31] Press company in Tennessee. Green tickY
[32] Fairly significant coverage Green tickY
[33] Third Alabama source outside the two cities Green tickY
[34] WP:BLOG and the source is mostly interview Red XN
[35] Partial
[36] Doesn't speak to the tone of a rivalry Question?
[37] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[38] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[39] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[40] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[41] WP:ROUTINE Red XN

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still is no strong emerging consensus regarding the question of the sources, hoping a second relist can help avoid a "no consensus" close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Kuznyechikov[edit]

Vladyslav Kuznyechikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence to suggest that Kuznyechikov meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. His career consists of nothing more than appearances in Volyn Lutsk's reserve team. Searches in Ukrainian give some stories about a refugee of the same name but I can't find anything about the footballer other than the stats sites used in this article and the Ukrainian Wikipedia article, none of which confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Me (interactive fiction)[edit]

Eat Me (interactive fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially non-notable interactive fiction game on an article with fairly light reliable sourcing. This is a borderline case, so as ever I would like to be proven wrong. A search online yields two short but reliable sources out there from Rock Paper Shotgun [42] and Vice [43]. Almost there, but there seems to be little else. There is a review from Portage Magazine [44] which is a fairly obscure undergraduate Wisconsin student newspaper - not particularly reliable or mainstream coverage. Otherwise the article is sourced heavily from the author's own blog, user sites and forums, and a strange over-reliance on non-copyrighted reference images. The author, as impressive as his writing seems, does not have much of a public-facing profile; I could only really find his credits on writing a DLC for Fallen London. Either way, hopefully more eyes on this can help clean up the article into a better state, although I do think its notability leans on the dubious side. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 15:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lounas Adjout[edit]

Lounas Adjout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:NSPORTS. The only news piece currently cited in the article fails WP:PASSING with flying colours, only consisting of 4 sentences whilst covering not one, but two players. I wasn't able to find any other non-database sources. The footballer is early in his career, having only played 2 full senior games + 9 minutes as a substitute, so the lack of sources isn't very puzzling. Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Tag Teams[edit]

Wrestling Tag Teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't need an unsourced list of current tag teams. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hanka[edit]

Adam Hanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It would appear to me that this article fails any number of criteria for inclusion as an article about a living person, including but not limited to WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:POLITICIAN. I note that there is no corresponding article on the Czech language Wikipedia As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Shirt58,
I was actually of the opinion that Hanka already has quite a decent amount of coverage via various media, including international media. I've been interested in the Volt movement lately and came across him during my research. As chairman of a national section of a not exactly insignificant European movement and chairman of a party that is now also running in the European elections, I also considered him relevant from this perspective. In my view, the extent of the article after relatively short research also shows this. But yes, I don't speak Czech, so I can't help with an article in Czech, although I don't think that should be the deciding factor either.
But I would be happy to expand the article further and add more sources and information if the existing sources are not sufficient for notability. However, I have to say that I'll be travelling a lot over the next few days, so I can't say how much I'll get done and sometimes it takes me a little longer to reply. Heideneii (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WebORB Integration Server[edit]

WebORB Integration Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zuaiter[edit]

Hassan Zuaiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual is notable only for WP:ONEEVENT, and fails WP:VICTIM criteria. PROD was removed.

Teammate Ibrahim Qusaya was also PROD, but was removed and is now up for deletion under the same rationale. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not terribly influenced by the two keep !votes but also looking for more participation to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no rule or guideline on Wikipedia to support your claim of "automatic notability". Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. SUSTAINED SIGCOV is lacking and there is no presumption of notability from playing internationally. A standalone is not warranted.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient. If the target returns to mainspace, happy to restore the history for a merge. Star Mississippi 15:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent[edit]

Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Entrierly article is a plot summary, upon looking for coverage all I found was articles announcing that the book was in produciton. No WP:SIGCOV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Booklist [45]
  2. Three-to-four paragraphs in Abilene Reporter-News [46]
I could see a merge of the set of Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead series of novels into one page as well, but that outcome is probably out of scope for this AfD. Possible ATD is a merge to The Walking Dead (comic book) § Novels —siroχo 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: If I indpedently created a Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead page could a merge be made into it. The page doesnt exit right so its not a valid outcome, if the page was made during the afd could it be merged into it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs), since the second source discusses both this book and the series as a whole, I am fine with Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent being merged into a book series article. If a series article is created (and if no other sources are found for this book), I am fine with and supportive of a merge being done even if the AfD is closed as "keep". Cunard (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its been made, but I am struggling to find sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, the page was previously made, then draftified due to CV issues: Draft:Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 // Timothy :: talk  23:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a lot of options being floated around in this discussion but no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ There is an actual article with relevant content now problem solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noble outlaw[edit]

Noble outlaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per discussion on talk page, this is an article that was started as vandalism by an IP 18 years ago and then became a sort of pseudo disambiguation/SIA despite not being either. This is one of many pseudo-SIAs that are popping up due to the change in class mask logic revealing articles classed as disamb that are actually not. This is not a relevant concept as far as I can tell and is not discussed as a term independently or in relation to either of the entries on the page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read books, people!

References

  1. ^ a b c Kershner 1992, p. 210.
  2. ^ a b Smith 2016, p. 59.
  3. ^ Jump 2016, p. 72.
  4. ^ a b Lorenz 2017, p. 67.
  5. ^ Angiolillo 1979.
  6. ^ Babinski 1979, pp. 307–309.
  7. ^ Wilkinson 1969, p. 428.
  • Wilkinson, Endymion (1969). "Reviewed Work(s): The Chinese Knight-Errant by James J. Y. Liu". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 32 (2): 428–429.
  • Thorslev, Peter Larsen (1962). The Byronic Hero: Types and Prototypes. Minneapolis.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Kershner, Richard Brandon (1992). Joyce, Bakhtin, and Popular Literature: Chronicles of Disorder. UNC Press Books. ISBN 9780807843871.
  • Jump, John D. (2016). "Heroes and Rhetoric 1812–1818". Byron. Routledge Library Editions: Lord Byron. Routledge. ISBN 9781317235057.
  • Lorenz, Matt (2017). "'The lightning of my being': The Byronic Struggle and Apotheosis of John Proctor". In Marino, Stephen (ed.). Arthur Miller’s Century: Essays Celebrating the 100th Birthday of America’s Great Playwright. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443896153.
    • also available as: Lorenz, Matt (2016). "'The Lightning of My Being': The Byronic Struggle and Apotheosis of John Proctor". The Arthur Miller Journal. 11 (1): 10–20. doi:10.5325/arthmillj.11.1.0010.
  • Smith, Thomas Ruys (2016). "'The Dying Confession of Joseph Hare': Transatlantic Highwaymen and Southern Outlaws in the Antebellum South". In Hobson, Fred; Ladd, Barbara (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Literature of the U.S. South. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199767472.
  • Angiolillo, Paul Francis Mathew (1979). A Criminal as Hero: Angelo Duca. Regents Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700601844.
  • Babinski, Hubert F. (1979). "Reviewed Work(s): A Criminal as Hero: Angelo Duca by Paul F. Angiolillo". Italica. 56 (3): 307–309.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Adatrow[edit]

Pradeep Adatrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing notability here. The citation record seems to fall quite a ways short of what WP:NPROF crit. 1 would require, and there's no indication that any of the other NPROF criteria are met. My WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up any GNG-qualifying coverage either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Quiz Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Karnataka Quiz Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing not meeting "Intended audience" clause from WP:ORG. It is only covered in local newspaper (bengaluru) बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimized Electrotech[edit]

Optimized Electrotech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep as nomination withdrawn per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Fermiboson (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America[edit]

Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NORG fail. I do think this is borderline, and a bit of digging is required. The detailed explanation post will come as a long reply. Fermiboson (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are sources covering this party. Both sources in the article appear to be Marxist blogs, which is neither independent nor RS. Most Google hits are also to blogs, catalogues, or "social-democrating workingmen's party of [somewhere else]", or those of the same name founded on a different year. There are, however, three academic sources which could potentially be usable. The issues are enumerated below.
  • Source 1: Stedman, Murray S. “‘Democracy’ in American Communal and Socialist Literature.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 12, no. 1, 1951, pp. 147–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2707542. This source is probably neutral and RS. It is a part of an overview of the evolution of Socialist rhetoric in the US throughout the 1800s to pre-WWII. The party is mentioned in the following paragraph only, which seems like a passing mention:

Students of political history will recall that in 1876 an organ known as the Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America was formed. It is of interest from the point of view of this inquiry because of its name. Aside from the title of the party, the party constitution and platform contained no references to "democracy".

  • Source 2: Foner, Philip, "The Workingmen's Party of the United States: A History of the First Marxist Party in the Americas." Studies in Marxism, vol. 14, 1984. MEP Publications. [50] This source, as the title suggests, is entirely about the party itself. I would lean towards this source being usable, as the academic appears to be reputable and I don't see any immediate evidence of non-independence of the source. We do however find ourselves in the unusual situation where there is an entire book about something, and nothing else but primary sources, which is not GNG. A quick scroll through the bibliography of the book shows most of the references to be either about Marx/Engels and the general social situation at the time, or primary sources from the party and its successors.
  • Source 3: [51] Ghent, W. J. "Socialism: A Historical Sketch" This is one of a series of pamphlets explicitly "written by socialist authors", so it is definitely a biased source bordering on ABOUTSELF. The book mentions workingmens' parties of various countries in great detail, but its mention of the American one appears to be limited to the following on p30:

During this twelve-year period Socialism overflowed from Germany jnto the other countries of Europe. In the United States it had already made a beginning. Indeed, the organized movement here, which has a continuous existence from the Social Democratic Workingmen's party of 1874, is, with the exception of the two German parties which united at Gotha, the oldest in the world. If, as suggested by Hillquit, it be dated from the formation of the General German Labor Association in New York (1868), it outdates the Bebel-Liebknecht wing of the German party (1869), leaving only the Lassalle wing (1863) with an earlier origin.

The book then goes on to talk about the various efforts at international collaboration of socialist parties, and does not really mention the article subject by name anymore. This also seems to be a bit of a passing mention.
It does seem that, apart from source 2, all the mentions of the party come as a brief note that they were the "first" in the US. Possibly a merge could be done into History of socialism in the United States? I'm not well versed enough in the topic to judge, but I am unable to find evidence that this meets GNG. Fermiboson (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fermiboson::
I agree that the Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America is in a grey zone of notability; I can't find any sources solely dedicated to discussing it, for example.
I've added a few additional sources to the article, including all those that you've included. The Foner citation, in particular, goes into detail about the history of the SDWP before its merger into the WPUS. Given that the SDWP was the first major step toward a Marxist socialist party in the United States, and given that its history ultimately helped shape the Socialist Party of America, I think it is a useful if short page for readers interested in early modern American socialism.
I would strongly recommend against deletion of the article in its current state.
Aside: I know it's not relevant to notability, but I would also add: For niche historical topics like this, basically the only resource the general public will have is Wikipedia. Scattered scholarly sources are worthless to a casual reader. SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and while I do agree that it is useful to have an article, as you noted, it isn't relevant to notability. I do think a merge may be the better option here. But I'll let you do more writing (and anyone who comes across this to give feedback) and if no one votes delete, I may be open to withdrawing the AfD nom after a while. Fermiboson (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Vector Graphics (ThorVG)[edit]

Thor Vector Graphics (ThorVG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a software database and requires articles to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ Materialscientist (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ackley function[edit]

Ackley function (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This things reads more like a documentation page (minus the commentary often seen in code) rather than an article. Also, I fail to see news sources (etc.) that demonstrate the notability of this function. Silcox (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn nom and speedy keep. With the new award NACTOR is likely met. Fermiboson (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Calah Lane[edit]

Calah Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A borderline NACTOR fail. There are secondary sources, but all of them (except the cosmopolitan source in the article) is a review of the Wonka musical, and anything else which isn't that is an interview (which is also usually in the context of the Wonka role). It smells a bit BLP1E. Most of the sources do meet significant coverage, but since this is the biography of a minor, I'm going to err on the side of putting this up for deletion. Fermiboson (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I wanted to make sure I understood the rules for deletion based on BLP1E. After reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_BLP1E_is_not, I am sure it does not apply in this case. First of all, this is a professional actress who certainly doesn't shed the limelight. Secondly, even though Wonka (a $125 million dollar movie), is clearly her major breakthrough, she has a string of appearances in other TV and movie productions, starting in 2016.
I remember having exactly the same discussion when I created articles for Jodie Turner-Smith and Demi Singleton when they had their breakthrough roles. Both were saved from the brink of deletion and now have countless references to them from other articles. Calah Lane is not a one-hit wonder, but a young actress with quite a resume and more starring roles ahead of her. Tomdejong14 (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna make a simple suggestion here. Since you did create this article, please do add more references to the article itself, for I'm sure it will easily satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I've linked all mentions of Calah Lane in other Wikipedia articles to this page (there were quite a few already, certainly not all tied to the "Wonka" movie). I also added more references to external sources. Hopefully the editors will agree there is merit in keeping this article. That 'marked for deletion' banner still hurts. Tomdejong14 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 December 2023 it was announced Calah Lane was nominated for a 2023 Critics' Choice Award in the category Best Young Actor/Actress. The author of the page listing the nominees linked to the Calah Lane article. Tomdejong14 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I've decided to close this discussion as No consensus. If there were more participants here, I think the closure would have been more decisive. I'll just note that the article was tagged for discussion soon after its creation and has been subject to additional editing since its nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Isaac Saul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted via a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Saul). Most of the sources provided on the pages are from before the previous discussion, which would indicate that Saul is still non-notable. However, a few sources have been published since the last discussion in 2021. As such, I wouldn't necessarily consider this eligible for CSD, but it's worth discussing whether Saul is now notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lexington, Transylvania University 300 North Broadway; Fax: 859‐233‐8797, KY 40508 USA Phone: 859-233‐8300. "Creative Intelligence". Transylvania University | Calendar of Events. Retrieved 2023-11-17.((cite web)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Conley, Julia (2020-11-13). "Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits". Salon. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
  3. ^ Academy, NBCU (2023-10-11). "How Substack Journalists Are Growing Their Audiences". NBCU Academy. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
  4. ^ Avilucea, Isaac (August 2, 2023). "Tangle founder hosts high court chat in Philly". Axios.
  5. ^ Waldmeir, Patti (2022-05-30). "Two Americans talk across the political divide". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
Mover of molehillsmove me 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So my position is obviously keep, although I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment on my own article. Mover of molehillsmove me 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mover of molehills you're perfectly entitled take a position in the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills the guideline for notability of people is WP:BIO, which asks for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", while WP:THREE suggests presenting three references to show that WP:BIO is met. I don't think the five sources you linked provide the required coverage

TSventon (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "American Democracy Summit Speakers". American Democracy Summit. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  2. ^ "Isaac Saul - Official Member of The Progress Network". The Progress Network. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  3. ^ "Frank talks to Isaac Saul, Founder of Tangle News about the Israel-Hamas war. – 77 WABC". wabcradio.com. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  4. ^ Hibberd, James (2022-11-15). "'SNL' Ratings Hit Season High With Dave Chappelle Amid Uproar". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate newly found sources not placed in the article yet. Right now, there is disagreement over whether existing sources are sufficient to establish notability for this journalist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brother, Nate (2023-12-06). "Transylvania Hosts Journalist Isaac Saul in Creative Intelligence Series". The Rambler. Retrieved 2023-12-08.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the sources above demonstrate anything approaching notability. School newspapers are not independent sources on people their university invites to speak, nor are profiles by organizations the subject belongs to. It takes MUCH more recognition than a handful of mentions surrounding one or two events for someone to meet NJOURNO.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, although please note that the sources above are only the sources that I added recently – there are quite a few more listed in the article itself. Mover of molehillsmove me 23:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sportsnet 360#Programming. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Sportsnet 360[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Sportsnet 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NLIST and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. No objection to a redirect to Sportsnet 360  // Timothy :: talk  03:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the variety of options mentioned by participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GTunnel[edit]

GTunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little evidence of notability or third-party source coverage outside of passing mentions ([52]). Searches for the product name itself largely direct to a different project of the same name on GitHub. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Morneau[edit]

Louis Morneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, film directors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their films exist -- notability is not inherited, so the notability test requires evidence of significance, supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about them and their work.
But existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, the article is completely unsourced, and even the films listed in his filmography are almost all direct-to-video B-movies whose articles are also not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for films either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help finding references instead of asking for deletion? Which are suitable reference websites for this? There are several homonyms, so looking for the proper references is difficult. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the help with references. Yann (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: thank you for creating the page. Just a note: what homonyms are you referring to above? Don't you want to delete that bit, as I think it might belong to some other discussion? (I forgot which but I seem to remember another ongoing Afd somewhere!). Of course, feel free to leave it if you think it's important but if so, you might want to elaborate so that everyone (including me, I confess) may understand what you mean. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the 10 first hits of [53] seems to concern another Louis Morneau. Yann (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks for clarifying. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess the article in light of recent expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to TV Tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2020[edit]

TV Tonight Awards 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable 'awards' conferred by an albeit notable website. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources. At best, redirect to TV Tonight. There are similar articles for 2021 and 2022. Boneymau (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient, and a merger has been discounted for myriad reasons-rendering it not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 23:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Philip[edit]

Nick Philip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST with no significant, independent coverage available. The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions, with the remaining few available sources being interviews. The NY Times source is paywalled but seems to be a trivial mention as well.

The unsourced claim regarding being a founding contributor of Wired magazine might suggest notability, but there doesn't seem to be any substantiation for this except this, which is of questionable reliability and is an interview anyway. The Wired (magazine) article does not currently mention him by name at all and I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself.

The article's talk page had someone in 2007 argue for notability but the points appear weak and/or outdated. Regardless, there's a dearth of reliable sources available for many of the claims. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By outdated I'm referring to what the notability criteria may have been in 2007 on Wikipedia. Maybe having an IMDb page or a product for sale on Amazon could have, alongside other points, justified retention of an article then, however they mean nothing today. I wasn't around this area back then so I wouldn't know. I was not arguing contrary to WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
Thanks for finding some additional sources including for Wired, though I'm still unconvinced WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST are met here especially since the reality of his work there may not be as grand as the "founding contributor" claim might have insinuated. And I disagree regarding WP:SIGCOV: it specifically mentions in detail so I would argue coverage should be at least somewhat lengthy. The cited portion of the Reynolds book mentions him once in the thesis statement for the section (pp. 149-150) and has a single paragraph about him, with much of the content of said paragraph being quotations from him (pp. 152-153). Aside from that, pp. 61, 155, and 307 contain additional quotations, each limited to one paragraph each. I don't see how his few mentions in this book are any more than trivial. If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't there be a chapter or at least a section of a chapter dedicated to him? Uhai (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have augmented the article further using yet another SIGCOV RS citation, to i-D magazine. I saw that in the other AfD you had mentioned that piece, arguing that it's an interview [...] so isn't independent. But that doesn't apply the introduction of the piece, which was evidently written by the i-D journalist. (And the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT just by talking to that subject would be absurd; in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage.)
Thanks for the clarification regarding outdated and your various other thoughtful responses. But I don't follow those arguments for lengthiness requirements - the part of WP:SIGCOV you are referring to continues [...] so that no original research is needed to extract the content, making clear that the detail is a means to an end, an end which is served perfectly well in this specific case. As for If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? - I'm sorry, but that argument is entirely off the mark. Simon Reynolds' book is not about a single "genre/subculture" but catalogs an enormous number of them as part of one broad paradigm (or several) spanning multiple decades across multiple countries, i.e. what the author calls "dance culture". The index alone is 21 pages long (I'm looking at the 2012 US edition, rather than the 1999 one currently cited in the article), consisting almost entirely of notable people, bands, venues etc. That's admittedly my subjective impression, but I actually just confirmed it empirically by going through the letter "Z", where all but one of the entries have a Wikipedia article, with the remaining one (Zone Records) being a redirect. And all of these have fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip. In other words, your counterfactual seems highly implausible. A well-known expert's comprehensive overview, written years or decades after the fact, can't be examined in the same way for the purposes of WP:GNG as a contemporary news or magazine article, or a specialist book entirely devoted to a single obscure niche topic.
To clarify just in case and for the record: I didn't create this article and have had some issues with some wordings and claims in previous revisions. But at this point I think WP:GNG is clearly satisfied.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the i-D article: you are correct that I said that and are correct that WP:IS can still apply to the introduction of an interview. However, it is just a brief introduction and context-setter that any interview would have and doesn't really provide the substance I would look for to make a case for WP:GNG. Looking over the article again, I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article because of the number of images at the bottom of the article of the upcoming (at the time of publishing) products along with a link to the store and release date and time for the products. I'm not sure if i-D does paid articles but per WP:VICE it does appear there is not currently community consensus on whether Vice Media publications are reliable. I haven't yet dug into the discussions to see why those who don't think it's reliable think so, whether it's for promotional or other concerns. Of course, there being no consensus doesn't mean Vice Media is not reliable, but I am concerned about i-D and this article in particular. If you or someone else more knowledgeable than I could weigh in, it would be appreciated. If the article is just a "let us interview you for clicks and we'll plug your stuff" type of symbiotic relationship, does this introduce WP:RS concerns—even if no money exchanged hands?
As far as the Reynolds book goes, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would not make the case that subjects with fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip having articles justifies the retention of this one. These subjects may also not be notable or may have more significant coverage elsewhere than what Phillip has. The bigger issue with the book is that Phillip's <6 mentions across it mostly consist of quotations from the man himself.
Thanks for the clarification regarding your involvement and previous concerns with the article. While I mentioned in the other AfD that there appears to have been some COI editing on both articles over the years, the reasoning for the nominations comes purely from concerns of notability.
This is an interesting discussion so hopefully we can get some participation from other editors as well to arrive at some consensus. Uhai (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhai: Generally speaking i-D is a well-reputed fashion magazine, founded in 1980 by a former art director of the British Vogue. (I actually started the German Wikipedia article about it way back in 2005, which the English one was based on ;) WP:VICE isn't really very pertinent here, as none of the community discussions that it summarizes covered or even mentioned i-D specifically (I just checked), and most of them appear to have been about the RS status of Vice (magazine), Vice News and other specific publications rather than Vice Media in general (although I haven't checked in detail).

"let us interview you for clicks" - to repeat myself: the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage (in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT) just by talking to that subject would be absurd (in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage). Likewise, insinuating that a news publication can't be regarded as reliable because it publishes articles designed to attract readership (clicks) is far removed from both journalistic practice and Wikipedia policy. As for the particular worry that this article could be a covert promotion (I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article): I'm not too familiar with UK advertising regulations for print and online news media, but I kind assume that they would require disclosure in that situation. (Some other i-D articles do disclose the use of affiliate links, which isn't really a RS concern - the New York Times makes quite a bit of money with these too.) And the mere fact that the article mentions the release date and time for the products (and depicts some of them) is no evidence of that. It is standard practice in reputable fashion media to cover new products, as it is indeed in cultural journalism in general - book reviews in RS publications will usually include specific purchasing information for the book including its price, movie reviews in quality newspapers routinely state "In theaters Dec 1" etc., respected art magazines will cover current exhibitions together with information specifically designed to facilitate visiting that exhibition (museum location, dates etc). And so on - a lot political news coverage is driven by politicians' press releases and announcements, many investigative journalism stories are triggered by what self-interested sources decide to make available to journalists, etc. Now, if all these general facts are new to you, sure, you can worry about symbiotic relationships, earned media, or otherwise engage in generic media criticism. But all this has little to do with whether the publication in question has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the sense of WP:RS.

Re OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: That wasn't my argument above when comparing the level of coverage of Nick Philip in Reynolds' book to that of other (undisputably notable) subjects - rather it was a reductio ad absurdum of your shouldn't there be more? argument against notability.

@WomenArtistUpdates: Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement - are there reliable sources supporting that claim? I doubt that it is true; at least the term appears to have never appeared in the article's 17 year revision history. a long-winded description of his day job - what kind of argument is that? Shouldn't an article about an artist or designer actually focus on their work in the profession they are known for? How is this different from articles like say Esther Heins?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HaeB, I have struck the merge suggestion. The source I saw is https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/user/nick-philip/authored but as you point out, not enough to classify him as part of the movement. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Philip is alive and not verifiably in any notable collections. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts - death doesn't contribute to notability, but I understand that with the latter part you are referring to WP:ARTIST 4.d). However, that's not the only possible notability criterion here, hence all the conversation above especially about WP:GNG. But come to think of it, your source (the MIT Journal of Design and Science page) says that his design work is included in the permanent collection of SFMOMA, so that would actually count towards WP:ARTIST 4.d) too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SFMOMA claim is unverifiable. The bio on JoDS can't be considered reliable and I am not finding Nick Philip in the SFMOMA database. Also being dead doesn't confirm being notable, but the subject being alive certainly opens the article up to more scrutiny. The nominator's statement that there is no significant, independent coverage available has not been disproved. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider WP:GNG to be satisfied, as detailed above. (Btw, I've also since added another citation, to a Hypebeast.com article.)
As for the subject being alive, I still disagree about this being a factor in evaluating notability. Maybe you meant that article about dead people are not susceptible to COI editing (which would be at best half true), or that notable people often attract additional RS coverage upon their death? On that matter, I find it interesting that an obituary on legacy.com is presented as the only independent SIGCOV in the aforementioned Esther Heins article. I'm not sure that Legacy.com can be considered a RS in itself, and its claim that the obituary was also published by the Boston Globe seems very difficult to verify (I am not finding Esther Heins in the online database at https://www.bostonglobe.com/ - a search results in "0 Results for 'Esther Heins'", as does a site search with Google), and leaves open the question whether this was WP:INDEPENDENT coverage written by the Boston Globe's journalists or a paid obituary. (I'm not trying to make an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and I'm also not planning to nominate this or other of your articles for deletion. I'm just surprised to see an editor who appears to have created various borderline notable biography articles come up with several spurious deletion arguments here that are not grounded in policy.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my media skepticism was leaking into my reply. I understand you believe i-D is reputable though it would be nice if there was some discussion in this community regarding i-D's current reliability; it being under the umbrella of WP:VICE should give cause for contemplation at the very least given lack of consensus for other Vice publications being reliable. Though at the end of the day, the i-D article is still an interview, so even if we posit the article isn't paid and i-D is a 100% reliable publication (both of which may very well be the case), there's nothing there, again, besides the brief introduction of the interviewees. Could this introduction be used as a source for some information in the article? Sure—and it is for two sentences, which is about the most you'll get out of it. Does it contribute at all to whether the subject meets WP:GNG? No.
The fact that we've dug into this much detail regarding the sources I think is a litmus test for the lack of notability here. When we're debating whether an interview introduction and a few quotes from the subject in a book contribute to a claim of the criteria of WP:GNG being met, the point is proven. The reason some articles like this are stubs and have issues with unverified or unverifiable information—and the reason these things have been the case since the article's inception in 2006—is simply because there's a scarcity of coverage and there always has been. Obviously I'm not the first to believe this given the PROD back in 2007 that was contested by yourself, and what limited coverage has emerged in the years since then has not improved the case for notability. Uhai (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Has GNG been met? Some dispute over it, more (other editors) eyes may lead to a consensus either way on this issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lengthiness of AfD discussion is not is a litmus test for the lack of notability. Rather, what's been taking most room above are multiple spurious arguments for deletion - not just this digression into generic media criticism that I felt compelled to respond to by outlining various journalistic standards, but also other arguments for deletion that either had nothing to do with policy or were factually wrong (say the insinuation that the Wired website does not mention him), and their debunking. In fact, that "litmus test" argument is another such faulty argument in itself. Similarly, I think the claim that the article has been a "stub" and [has had] issues with unverified or unverifiable information [...] since [its] inception in 2006 is rather misleading - the 2006 version cited no references at all and was considerably shorter, whereas most of the information in the present version is well-sourced at this point. I also just removed one remaining unsourced sentence about an exhibition and added another sourced sentence about a different, more recent (2022) exhibition.
I have explained in detail above why I consider the i-D and Reynolds SIGCOV and mentioned other SIGCOV too. And we haven't even discussed other existing sources yet, e.g. the 1998 piece from "Shift", a Japanese magazine that I am not familiar with but which appears to have been used by editors in many other articles and which (as article topic) has been a requested article for a long time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I found another book ("Psychedelics Reimagined", published by Autonomedia in 1999) which based on this Google Books preview is clearly another SIGCOV RS (quoting the article subject at length in one part, and summarizing his views in another, some other pages that mention him are not displayed in this particular preview for me). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've both made our opinions quite clear at this point so I will not address further your criticisms of the arguments made here as this discussion may approach WP:BLUDGEON territory. I do hope we can gain participation from other editors otherwise I will give it some time and re-nominate at a later date in another attempt to seek consensus. Thanks for your thoughts and your efforts to find sources and improve the article. Uhai (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The consensus is Keep, including a change of opinion by the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Redmine (software)[edit]

Easy Redmine (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software fails WP:GNG. Note that this appears to be distinct from Redmine, which does have coverage. Open to redirect as WP:ATD, but is not mentioned at target page (and I can't find WP:SIGCOV of Easy Redmine in relation to Redmine, so I would consider a mention WP:UNDUE) A412 (Talk • C) 00:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://forbes.cz/miliardu-ale-pomalu-jak-cech-ktery-premysli-jinak-dostal-svuj-software-do-celeho-sveta/
https://cc.cz/hlavni-software-statni-spravy-kazachstanu-je-z-ceska-firma-easy-software-se-nenapadne-rozprostrela-po-svete/
https://komoraplus.cz/2022/03/11/vyzkum-odhalil-trendy-managementu-na-dalku/
Is there an implied concern of these sources not being sufficiently reliable or independent? PaulT2022 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:SIGCOV concerns. Several of the sources (in particular the two Forbes cites) lean heavily interview, and the first link feels like a CEO profile. More importantly, the bulk of the WP:RS coverage doesn't actually discuss Easy Redmine. I think we'd be able to write a WP:V article on Easy Software the company, or on CEO Filip Morávek, but RS says precious little about Easy Redmine aside from that it exists, this company develops it, and some companies in other countries use it. A412 (Talk • C) 04:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I'd support a move to Easy Software unless someone comes up with a reason to suspect that the facts about the company are false.
    WP:INDEPENDENT is a lesser concern in my view, as it's plausible that local media would like the story of worldwide success and produce coverage like this without improper influence. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the software is notable due to its coverage in independent international and Czech sources like Businessinsider, Forbes, CzechCrunch, and Komora Plus. The software has a global reach, being available in 80 countries, and is used for instance by the Kazakh state administration, that highlights its notability in project management. I don't object the renaming of the page too. I have also found additional good coverage in several notable books ana PCmag about Easy Redmine and addded it to the page. ThanX yall (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to its significant recognition in the software industry, as evidenced by references from reputable sources like Biztweet.eu, Czechstartups.org, and Computerwoche.de. It represents a notable innovation in project management software, extending the functionalities of Redmine and offering unique features like advanced user management and dynamic project planning. The software's global expansion, including its market influence in Japan, and its mention in academic research, such as the thesis from there, further underline its relevance. Additionally, its contribution to the open-source community and practical application in various businesses demonstrate its wide-ranging impact and justify its presence on Wikipedia. --Loewstisch (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I see new sources, reviews and books were found, and the local Czech are quite good for general notability. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl von Möller[edit]

Karl von Möller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are insufficient in establishing notability, nor could any reliable/ independent sources be found online containing more than just a passing mention. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom
AaronVick (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)(sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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