< July 19	July 21 >

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Crowe[edit]

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

PROMO for a non-notable public speaker. No sourcing other than primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siro χ o 01:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find promotional materials provided by her. Her book is published by a vanity press, and the "Speakers Playhouse" article is provided by a publicity agent. Lamona (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Devoke water 18:41, 27 July 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 2015 TalkTalk data breach. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kelley (hacker)[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:BLP1E, the only news coverage relates to his 2016 arrest and sentencing. Belbury (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. See https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/08/21/i-went-to-prison-for-the-77m-talktalk-hacking-i-could-be-sent-back-for-ordering-a-mcdonald on the page. Additionally, the page has existed for 6 months. NdbyQwK43y (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, article age is not a relevant indication of notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was in jail for the rest of the time, we won't find much about him while he was in jail me thinks. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ hacked, went to jail, and now wants to help others. Could be a brief section in an article about TalkTalk that he hacked, but that's all I see. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: WP:BLP1E does not apply: this was a highly significant event, as evidenced by the extensive coverage in various sources, and Kelley's role in it was of essential importance. However, WP:BIO1E does apply; Kelley is only notable for the involvement with this event, and is unlikely to become notable outside of it as of right now; ergo, there should be an article about the event. I think the notability of the event itself is quite clearly established by the numerous sources currently in the article. Accordingly, this page should be redirected to an article about the event; I'll create that now. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've created an article about the event at 2015 TalkTalk data breach; the standalone notability of that event should be uncontroversial. There's lots more coverage that I haven't included there yet.

As mentioned above, I would argue that this page should be redirected to the article on the event. If anyone thinks that there's relevant information to merge, all the better. Pinging @Belbury @Oaktree b since the situation of this AfD has changed with the creation of the event article. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the newly created data breach article. Sourcing for this person is all about the hack/breach. Nothing outside of that event. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a person is considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the case of Daniel Kelley, he has received extensive coverage in numerous reliable sources for his involvement in the 2015 TalkTalk data breach, including articles from reputable publications such as Computer Weekly and The Guardian. This coverage demonstrates that Kelley played an essential role in the event and is therefore notable under Wikipedia's guidelines.

Furthermore, Kelley's notability is not limited to his involvement in the data breach. He has also contributed to over 100 bug bounty programs and has spoken publicly about his experiences as a reformed black hat hacker. These additional sources of coverage demonstrate that Kelley has a broader impact on the field of cybersecurity and is therefore notable beyond the specific event.

Therefore, based on the significant coverage of Kelley in reliable sources and his broader impact on the field of cybersecurity, he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and should have a Wikipedia page.

1/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-prison-hackers-face-tech-restrictions-limited-job-prospects-11663788389

2/ https://www.psybersafe.com/fr/blog-fr/a-fresh-start-for-cyber-criminals

Additionally, here is a blog post published by him today which receieved widescale coverage: https://slashnext.com/blog/wormgpt-the-generative-ai-tool-cybercriminals-are-using-to-launch-business-email-compromise-attacks/?utm_content=256636270&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-721089455193337856

"About the author: Daniel Kelley is a reformed black hat computer hacker who collaborated with our team at SlashNext to research the latest threats and tactics employed by cybercriminals, particularly those involving BEC, phishing, smishing, social engineering, ransomware, and other attacks that exploit the human element."

This page should remain. He is a prominent figure in the cybersecurity industry. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to his involvement in the TalkTalk data breach, Daniel Kelley has received coverage in reliable sources for his leadership role in a hacking collective known as "Team Hans." According to articles such as this one from DataBreaches.net (source: https://www.databreaches.net/uk-talktalk-hacker-daniel-kelley-sentenced-to-4-years-in-jail/), Kelley coached two accomplices to hack Canada's Rogers Communications. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here he has helped fix 3,000 vulnerabilities in websites as a security researcher: https://www.openbugbounty.org/researchers/danielmakelley/ he's widely known to anyone inside of the industry. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Kelley has appeared as a guest on the podcast Darknet Diaries, where he discussed a range of topics beyond his involvement in the TalkTalk data breach (source: https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/117/). This appearance demonstrates that Kelley has had a broader impact on the field of cybersecurity beyond the specific event. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see support for Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 TalkTalk data breach, per WP:BIO1E. ARandomName123 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 TalkTalk data breach, with great thanks to Actualcpscm for creating the article. The anon raises some valid points above about the breadth of the article subject's career, but I don't think we have enough material here to cover that career meaningfully beyond this one event. -- Visviva (talk) 02:40, 22 July 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 23:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Bond[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile phone, sourcing in the native language appears promotional, but the translations using Gtranslate are janky. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Iran. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is obviously WP:TOOSOON since the phone was not released yet and in fact it is the first product launch by this company. All sources are either reprints of company press releases without much commentary (WP:RS) or outright speculation (WP:CRYSTAL). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anton.bersh: This phone pre-solds in Digikala with the price of 100 milion Rial (10 million Toman, around 200 US Dollar) Adler+ (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adler+: Thanks for the link. If I understand correctly, the source reports about pre-orders which are paid prior to phone release but the actual devices will be sent to buyers starting on August 10. This date is still in the future and it appears that publishing the article is still premature. Perhaps, after first users receive the phone some notable reviewer will publish an in-depth analysis of the phone. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for the future. I find it hard not to see this article as promotional, and perhaps utilizing non-public information sources. That all of the sources are in Persian doesn't help, but I asked for a translation of the specs provided by the company and didn't find the level of detail that I see in the infobox. Lamona (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a case of WP:TOOSOON as phone is not yet released.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + others --Devoke water 18:42, 27 July 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 nominator has withdrawn the nomination, concerns have been addressed and article has been improved. A hat tip to Andreas for improving the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ECONned[edit]

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

This article has existed as a stub since 2011 and in the decade since then has not had a single source added to it. Its only "reference" is a link to its store page, which makes this article look like an advertisement. It has been tagged as needing citations since 2016 and tagged for notability since 2022, but no movements to rectify these issues have been made. As such, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: I found nothing on this to substantiate notability; no good references at all, especially no secondary sources (WP:GNG) or indication of meeting WP:NBOOK.~~ Actualcpscm (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, with all the reviews that have been found, I think keep is the only reasonable option. Thanks to everyone who searched for these better than I did! Actualcpscm (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find mentions in conjunction with descriptions of its author (for example, "Yves Smith, prominent blogger and author of ECONned...") I can't find any sources to support notability per WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a substantial two-page academic review by Neil Fligstein in Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 2 (March 2011), pp. 140-142; and the book has well over 100 citations in Google Scholar. There is another three-page review here by Richard Du Boff in Monthly Review; Sep 2010; 62, 4. There is also coverage here (also published in a shorter version here, both available via WP:Library). I think it might be worth having a further look around. (The fact that the book is mentioned in a lot of author descriptions does make it hard to find sources that are about the book, but I am not sure right now that they don't exist.) --Andreas JN 466 12:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Actually, refreshing my memory, WP:NBOOK only asks for two substantial reviews, and I've posted two substantial academic reviews above. In addition, there is a press review here in The Guardian, and there are assorted mentions like the one here by Glenn Greenwald. That already means it clearly meets WP:NBOOK. (The article does require some work to reflect these sources ...) --Andreas JN 466 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBOOK per citations listed by Andreas. Sal2100 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or merge to an article to be created at Susan Webber (blogger). Noteworthy? Yes. Notable? I am not convinced that the current stub content requires its own article. BD2412 T 19:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added a Reception section with six reviews (Contemporary Sociology, Monthly Review, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, Central Banking and ScienceBlogs, the first four of which are summarised. (I can't see the Central Banking one and the ScienceBlogs one is a little too lightweight in that company.) --Andreas JN 466 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Andreas has now done some excellent work on this article and found a litanny of reviews that support the book's notability. My concerns have now been thoroughly addressed and I no longer think this article warrants deletion. Thanks for the efforts Andreas! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Andreas's great work. Thanks for doing it! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:10, 25 July 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 04:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CarSim[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication if the sources have WP:SIGCOV, so seems to fail WP:GNG. First two sources seem to have been written by the article's initial author. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Transportation. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Sorry haven't done AfD for yonks, can't remember the etiquette. Anyway, Carsim is used intensively in one small field, vehicle dynamics simulation. It is not the market leader, but it has been around forever. There's virtually no google coverage of it other than press releases so I suppose its notability is questionable. Greglocock (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would mean that the field is too small to be of interest for a wide audience. gidonb (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. gidonb (talk) 16:22, 22 July 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!} 05:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Myronuk[edit]

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

Questionable notability and potentially lacking in WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Canada, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myronuk contributed and / or was mentioned in multiple books, however, she always works in the background. Hence, it is first not noticeable. I support her notability. See example: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Robots_Ethics_and_the_Future_of_Jobs/kQc8EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justynazander (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appears to be a futurist associated with Raymond Kurzweil and Singularity University, but without scholarly impact (no citations in Google Scholar, no authored books with published reviews), so we have no pass of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Of the two sources that look like the could plausibly contribute to WP:GNG-based notability (Wired and CNN), the CNN piece has no depth of coverage on her and is dubiously independent of the Wired piece (it merely repeats Wired's "knowledge sommelier" catchphrase and says she is associated with Singularity University). The Wired article itself merely quotes her; it does not contain any content about her beyond a job title. So we do not have any of the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not find independent sources for her. In the Abundance book there is no mention of her, not even in the acknowledgments, and in the Kurtzweil book she is acknowledged as "one of the in house readers" (and dozens of people are thanked for more than that). I just don't find anything that can be attributed to this person that would be notable. Lamona (talk) 02:40, 23 July 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. After being relisted three times and listed at AFD for 28 days, there's no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bambery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Multiple issues unaddressed in article for multiple years. Fails WP:NPOL and also WP:NOTEWORTHY. Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bambery clearly does not pass WP:NPOL, but may pass WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews cited in the article and those elsewhere such as this (http not https). The article is very promotional, but as I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion in 2021 there are less promotional versions in the history. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly does not pass WP:NPOL. Among Bambery's books, "The Second World War: A Marxist History" was extensively reviewed in the Marxist press but doesn't seem to have been picked up by mainstream reviewers. "Catalonia Reborn" was the same story. "A Rebel's Guide to Gramsci" is, at 64 pages, more a pamphlet than a book. "A People's History of Scotland" was reviewed in both The Scotsman and The Herald but I couldn't find any other reviews in the major press. The two reviews of "A People's History of Scotland" are probably not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. On the whole, my !vote would be Delete. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR's requirement of having created a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Just looking at the People's History of Scotland, we have at least Monthly Review, Scottish Affairs, The Herald, The Scotsman. I am not aware of any policy-based reason for excluding Marxist periodicals, but even so that would only knock out the Monthly Review. Article is a mess but AFD is not cleanup and draftification is unlikely to lead to improvement. -- Visviva (talk) 04:12, 15 July 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, as well explained by @Visviva above, but for the utter avoidance of doubt, I've created A People's History of Scotland. CT55555(talk) 02:40, 21 July 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. ✗plicit 02:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagu[edit]

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

There aren't enough reliable sources on her to merit an article per WP:BIO. I think the article itself sums it up pretty well, "Little is known about her." Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 20 July 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Mykolaiv attacks[edit]

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

We cannot have an article on every single strike on every single Ukrainian locality throughout the war. This strike only caused three deaths which by this war's standards is not too remarkable (sad world we live in). The damage caused to a Chinese consular building could assure some notability however it appears no country has reacted to it so its potential is unexploited. Also, Mykolaiv has already been struck before during the year. On top of everything, the title is ambiguous. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just seen a red link and decided to make a page about it. Should this attack be incorporated into another article if it hasn't been already? Pburkart (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pburkart. First of all, you created the article using ChatGPT ([1]), which is a big no-no. Additionally, editing of articles relating to the Russia-Ukraine war is restricted to users who are extended-confirmed (tenure of 500 edits and 30 days), see WP:RUSUKR. Curbon7 (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea behind Wikipedia is that articles are built over time. I provided a stub. I could have simply said, "In 2023, the Russians attacked Mykolaiv", but that wouldn't have contained as much information. So I used ChatGPT to assist me in creating the article stub. I don't really see the problem with this. If those who are extended confirmed wish to delete or keep it, then there is no issue there either. Pburkart (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was transformed into an umbrella article about 2022–2023 bombings of city. Teterev53 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, ~~Russia~~, and ~~Ukraine~~. Skynxnex (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to its expanded focus on all attacks made on Mykolaiv from the war's start to the present moment.TH1980 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom it's getting close to a keep from me. I'd appreciate it if we could have a 2022 attack other than those two with an article be included. If this article only included three attacks one of which is not notable and the other two having their own separate articles I wouldn't want that kept. I think the article should have one attack without its own article from each year. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it looks to pass notability requirements and the article is quite expansive. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HEY, with preference to merge at least Mykolaiv cluster bombing and possibly Mykolaiv government building missile strike into here. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 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!} 21:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Al Malloul[edit]

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

Created in 2009, when notability standards were much lower than now, then tagged as a notability concern in 2011 and rightly so. The Syria News article cited is a trivial mention. Arabic searches bring up a lot of hits about similarly named footballers like Ali Maâloul. The only relevant hits that I can find are Al Rai and Al Jazeera. These are more trivial mentions. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 24 July 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 merge‎ to Valmont, Colorado#History. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valmont station[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in a BEFORE search. The current citations are a user comment on a blog post, and a single line in a timetable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Colorado. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the settlement it serves and/or the branch line it was on. Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (slightly selective) into Valmont, Colorado#History, where most of this text can be put to good use. The branch line has no entry. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 July 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!} 21:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ringback tone advertising[edit]

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

There are no sources to cite for this old article, and I cannot find any that make this merit having a page on wikipedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is just a personal essay about the "ringback tone advertising" and not an actual article. No material is reliably sourced and I could not find any reliable sources within the page history (most sources are long dead and all of them appear to be primary since they were actually trying to sell this service). The subject does not appear to be notable in any way. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:25, 21 July 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!} 19:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mila (Doctor Who)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

According to this article, the character has only made three appearances in the series, and thus seems relatively minor overall. I also cannot find any SIGCOV for the character, and thus it seems as though Mila doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given that she is a companion, albeit brief, it might be worth adding a mention of her to either the supporting characters list or Companions article as an alternative to straight deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the relevant audio drama articles or into an appropriate list as described in the nomination. There's no practical reason (like ease of navigation) that such an insignificant character needs their own article, and GNG is clearly not met here. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor character in three very minor spin-offs I assume have zero notability of their own as they have absolutely no sources. No one is going to search for this; if they really want information on such an obscure topic Tardis Data Core exists. Case of “It’s doctor who so it simply IS notable”. Dronebogus (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for notability. Not everything in the Whoniverse needs an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:36, 26 July 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 Doctor Who supporting characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Braxiatel[edit]

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

While a highly recurring and notable character in Doctor Who spin-off media, I quite literally could not locate any sources that were more than a trivial mention. The article already cites no sources to begin with. While the article has potential to be kept if sources turn up now or in the future, I don't believe anything exists right now. As it stands, article doesn't meet SIGCOV. A redirect to the Doctor Who supporting characters list seems good for now, though I'm wary of redirecting it there given the current state of that article. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources for notability. I have no opinion on whether a redirect would be appropriate. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters is the best target I can think of; he’s one of the best-known spinoff characters so I don’t think hard delete is appropriate Dronebogus (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this character in reliable sources. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 24 July 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!} 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pir Junaid Shah Rashdi[edit]

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

The article is unsourced. I was unable to find any relevant sources. Charsaddian (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to complete lack of sources. Personally, I would have gone with WP:BLPPROD first. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 24 July 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 non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Piece Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR, as well as having been tagged for needing additional citations for three years. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. HorrorLover555 (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. Aspects (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 26 July 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!} 19:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Canizio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Former college soccer player who has made at least seven appearances for the United States Virgin Islands women's national soccer team. It also appears she had a brief professional career in 2018. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The source in the article is a local piece about a new signing, which appears to be promotional given the final line at the bottom. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I don't think the available source is as problematic as the nomination implies, there doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage elsewhere. A WP:NEXIST Keep would be a stretch, in my opinion. If there are good sources on this person, I'd expect them to be available online rather than exclusively offline. And the coverage available online just isn't even close to fulfilling the requirements of WP:GNG. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC) - Edited 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Actualcpscm: If I remember correctly, the last AfD for this subject had a few decent sources, including three offline ones from the Cherokee Scout that were several hundred words focusing on Canizio. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @BeanieFan11: I've amended the statement above to more clearly express my concern, in line with what has been discussed previously. Thanks for pointing this out!
  
  I think the concerns raised about the reliability of the Cherokee Scout are quite legitimate; it seems to be that it's just too small to have meaningful editorial oversight and would probably not fare well at RSN. The reason there are concerns about small local papers with regards to reliability are not because they're small and the coverage is local, but because reliable editorial oversight and fact-checking require significant resources and specialised knowledge that usually aren't available to this kind of publication. Note that the award won for sports reporting is justified mostly through "variety" and photo-journalism (1).
  
  Of course, an interview with the article subject is not independent coverage. As I mentioned, I don't share the same concerns about the WLOS article that have been brought up before, at least not to the same extent as other participants in the previous discussion. However, one probably-good source just isn't enough for GNG.
  
  I found the CT source during my own search before voting, and I discarded it because it's hardly in-depth coverage. WP:NBASIC sets a pretty clear standard for that: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. Not only is this just quantitatively not enough, it's also not a discussion of the subject by any means.
  
  GNG is a high standard, and I don't think we should be combining multiple sources that each fail some aspect of the criteria (other than depth of coverage per WP:BASIC) to establish notability – five unreliable or potentially-not-independent sources don't replace a good one. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG based on the sources presented in the previous AFD from July 2022. The WLOS source has some interview content but enough non-interview content to easily be considered independent of Ms. Canizio and provides significant coverage. The Citizen-Times source also provides adequate coverage. Other profiles/routine coverage in the article are not enough to pass GNG on their own but can supplement what I posted above. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 19:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WLOS local interest piece has just a few independent sentences beyond the quotes/interviewee paraphrasing. It's also one of many such interview profiles on Asheville City soccer players by the same author over a two-week period in mid-late April, all of them hyping the upcoming season start in early May. It's routine, hyperlocal coverage, much like the Cherokee Scout articles. Not enough for SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add: the two Citizen-Times articles mentioned are a four-sentence press release announcing an honor and a YOUNGATH-failing interview, both by the same author. JoelleJay (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does what not make sense? A routine announcement does not contribute to GNG and an interview when she was in high school with little independent commentary in a local newspaper does not contribute to GNG either. They're also both by the same reporter so they wouldn't be separate sources regardless. JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article has a byline in a newspaper with an editorial staff, by definition it's not a "press release", even if the journalist used facts that originated from a "press release". You seem to throw around terms like "press release" and "routine announcement" a lot without really understanding journalism basics. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with sports reporting? I've sent plenty of these kinds of releases to local news on behalf of teams. None of that info is coming from the journalist's own investigation. Material derived entirely from press releases is treated as intellectually non-independent from the press release. That source is exactly the type of routine announcement dismissed in hundreds of other AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The role of a journalist or editor writing for a reliable news source is to vet the facts. If they put their name in the byline, in most mainstream American newspapers, it means they are vouching for the accuracy of the facts they are reporting; and if there are any errors, they have an ethical responsibility to correct them. (Anyway yes, thanks for correcting your terminology there about "derived from" rather than "press release".) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Frank Anchor... Idk why this article was nominated again... has good sources like [2] and [3] and the Cherokee Scout articles... Clearly most significant US Virign Islands women's player... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and at last AFD which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Have added more sources to the article from The Virgin Islands Daily News and some important missing details, like the fact that she was team captain of the USVI women's team. There is even a newspaper article that focuses in-depth on her middle school tackle football career. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (albeit a bit weak), per the sources presented here and at the prior AfD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [copying the argument I made in the first AFD, which still applies in full]. Keep per the sources provided by other users giving the subject enough coverage to pass GNG. The sources provided by BennyOnTheLoose [in the first AFD] are acceptable and can not be discounted solely because they are from a smaller publications. The WLOS source above is certainly GNG approved as well. And others are questionable but there is enough overall independent significant coverage for this article to be kept. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Actualcpscm and JoelleJay that the available sources are not significant coverage of Canizio. The "get to know" WLOS article covers her directly, but not in-depth, and the collegiate soccer coverage is generally derived from the subject or her college, and isn't sustained or in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:04, 25 July 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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Echichens[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. A single source which is about one of the team's players. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Switzerland. UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Local media seems to cover their matches in significant depth quite regularly: 1, 2, 3. Unfortunately, these paywalls are not bypassed by the Internet Archive, so I can't evaluate this coverage in detail right now. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that suffice for WP:AUD? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [4], [5], and [6], among many more French and German sources. Gets consistent coverage from media as well. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, per sources provided. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Dad Osmenzz. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:02, 27 July 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. Sandstein 06:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Milligan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Texas. UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire career seems to be bit parts, lots of hits in Gsearch, only confirming the one-off or minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion hinged around her role in the "Spit on your Grave" movie; ok fine, but she doesn't seem to have done much either before or since, so it's still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 28 June 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, ✗plicit 23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The biography qualifies under WP:ENT because of the films she produced/coproduced, acted in, as well as was an executive producer for. NOTE: There are many additions of cited information as well as more complete information since this was last voted on. Starlighsky (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2023
Delete WP:ENT is only a guideline and is superseded if there are no sources. I waded through 10 pages of Google results without seeing anything substantial - with most actors/creatives with significant film roles you'd expect some press coverage at least from local/regional media, but not seeing anything reliable even below the required quantity. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:ENT and largely per Onel5969's contribution to the previous AFD, which does not seem to have been successfully refuted. We seem to have significant, verified roles in at least three notable films: I Spit on Your Grave (2010 film), The Gray Man (2007 film), and Three Days in August. (As to WP:ENT being only a guideline, I feel compelled to note that the WP:GNG is also only a guideline, and the GNG and SNGs are on an equal footing in affording only a presumption of notability.) -- Visviva (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visviva: My vote below does not directly address what Onel said, but it is relevant; with both WP:GNG and WP:ENT being "only" guidelines, I think there's room to say that the subject technically meets the requirements of WP:ENT but still isn't notable due to a lack of good sources.

Even if we want to stick to the WP:ENT's wording really precisely, we can still find that wiggle-room: "may be considered notable" quite explicitly allows for diverting from the SNG's notability threshold when appropriate. Onel's ENT argument is fundamentally sound (though I like "significance" of roles to be established through reliable reporting, not OR), but ENT is not the end-all notability threshold, and I think we can reasonably divert from it here. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When sourcing clearly isn’t there then presumptions of notability from SNGs carry less weight then the GNG fail. This is a BLP and should be assessed against the need for high quality sources. These appear not to exist and this person is marginal at the very best. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The purpose of most SNGs is to provide an outline for when it can be reasonably presumed that significant coverage of a subject exists; fulfilling an SNG does not have to mean that a subject is notable with definitive certainty, it's just highly likely. Thus the generally more malleable wording of those guidelines – "presumed notable" is common. In the case of WP:NACTOR, the subject "may be considered notable" if they meet the relevant criteria, but as has been mentioned above, this probability is superseded by the lack of detailed reporting in appropriate sources. After all, the purpose of notability is in part to ensure that articles can comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, amongst others. Although BLPs don't have higher notability requirements per se, given the need for high-quality sources in writing a WP:BLP, and the lack thereof here, I think it's fair to say that notability requirements are not fulfilled. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opinion you're entitled to have, but I'll state for the record that I don't think it is supported by the relevant guidelines. To quote the opening of the GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when ... (emphasis in original). That's exactly the same language you quote as being "more malleable". The hard boundary around notability is given by WP:V#Notability: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Within that boundary, the actual text of almost every notability guideline is carefully flexible, as it should be, because the question of whether a freestanding article serves our encyclopedia in a particular case is always going to involve many different considerations. Sourcing is important, but so is (verifiable) encyclopedic significance as embodied in various SNGs including ENT. We should be careful to avoid the trap of giving the PAGs a meaning that an ordinary user would not give them. Doing so is harmful on many levels, but particularly because it damages our standing as a community that is open and welcoming to newcomers. -- Visviva (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability guideline WP:ENT is met per Visviva's reference of Onel5969. Note that Three Days in August was indeed released so the case has become more clear than before. —siro χ o 08:55, 21 July 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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunajec Nowy Sącz[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources but one external link. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Poland. UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [7], [8], and [9], among many more Polish sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Sufficient sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:02, 27 July 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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources. Fails WP:GNG. As an WP:ATD, a redirect to Jim Carroll would work. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Scanlon, Tom (1987-09-20). "Strong stomach required: Debauchery is revisited by Jim Carroll" (pages 1 and 2). Peninsula Times Tribune. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""Forced Entries," with its short, terse chapters, is good reading, for the most part. Carroll's dialogue is stiff, however, and his insights are indeed at times "dubious" ("... one continues to inject the speed throughout the day for en- ergy, dubious insight, and social interaction"). Yet when Jim Carroll hits unselfconscious grooves, his writing has a beautiful rhythm, and a burning honesty."
2. Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher (1987-07-09). "Books of the Times; By Christopher Lehmann-Haupt". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  The review notes: "Despite the maturing voice of Forced Entries, the two diaries remain similar in their quest for extreme sensations and their eagerness to shock the reader. One is aware almost throughout that the author is more intelligent than he appears and that he takes a certain pride in dissipating his gifts."
3. Hochswender, Woody (1987-10-18). "The Way They Were in Greenwich Village: Down and in Life in the Underground by Ronald Sukenick (Beech Tree Books/William Morrow: $17.95; 288 pp.): Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973 by Jim Carroll (Penguin Books: $6.95; 184 pp". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  The review notes: "As with any diary, at times the author seems quite full of himself, and, as a consequence, full of something else. For the poet, “not dying young can be a dilemma,” he tells us. And he’s a frenetic name-dropper. For example, the section entitled “Hello, Dali” consists of nothing more than a chance encounter on 57th Street, where Salvador Dali commandeers his cab. But somehow Carroll has the slick slang to carry it off. He’s a collector of fancy words, and at one point he makes a note to himself to use the words serpentine and abattoir in his poetry. Sure enough, both appear inconspicuously later in the book."
4. Delacorte, Peter (1987-07-12). "A Follow-Through Beyond The Hoop" (pages 1 and 2). San Francisco Examiner. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "And for the next 30 pages the book is incessantly boring, because Carroll is a fish out of water. In its meandering way, the book has been leading to this: the rite of purification, the great battle against the "small pink simian" that holds Carroll captive. But nothing happens. Carroll makes vapid observations about California. He gets a dog. He has teeth extracted. He makes his big attempt to kick drugs; little regard is paid to the major event. He returns to New York."
5. Finz, Stacy (1987-06-26). "After quitting a longtime heroin addiction, moving..." Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  The article notes: "“Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973” is now in bookstores, and Carroll has since moved back to New York, where he resides on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The modern poet, songwriter and rock musician will read excerpts from “Forced Entries” and his last collection of poetry, “The Book of Nods,” at 9 p.m. Sunday at the Saigon Palace. ... “Forced Entries” follows Carroll through his rising stardom and presents intimate episodes in his life."
6. Menn, Joseph (1987-07-09). "Jim Carroll, escape article. A writer comes back from the edge" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "But the new book, "Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973". talks about those days and his mind-and-body escape to a temporary retreat in Northern California, where he kicked heroin and worked on his writing. The title is a pun on the difficulty of getting off hard drugs and continuing to write diary-like entries. ... His book is not a documentation of an era of ferment, as Penguin Books calls it. "Forced Entries" records Carroll's "obscure rite of passage" as he turned his knowledge of sophisticated, vacuous New York scene-making into personal, life-saving wisdom.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources by Cunard.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 26 July 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. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Curtner[edit]

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

Federal public defenders are not inherently notable. The subject lacks in depth, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Only mentions I could find were passing mentions that are WP:ROUTINE for many lawyers and public defenders. Let'srun (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Alaska. Let'srun (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Like the nom, I could not find any reliably-sourced significant coverage of the subject that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let'srun, WP:ROUTINE is a section within the Notability (events) guideline.

Rich Curtner is not an event.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:33, 24 July 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 merge‎ to Teach For America. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching as Leadership[edit]

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

no good sources. fails notability guidelines for books. lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Maproom (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's got a review here [10], and it got cited in Malaysian sources [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When one of your two article sources is Teach For America for a book published by the Chief Knowledge Office at Teach For America, you're in the weeds. WP:BEFORE shows more affiliate links than you can shake a stick at, but no evidence of depth of review or impact. An ATD would be a redirect to Teach for America... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Teach for America as a new L3 section, otherwise keep per Oaktree b. This does appear to have attracted roughly the bare minimum of coverage required by WP:NBOOK, namely having been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. More prevalent, though, seems to be coverage that talks about "Teaching as Leadership" as a philosophical framework of Teach for America, of which the book is merely a prominent representation, e.g. [12], [13], [14]. To my mind we would best serve the reader by following those sources, and having a section in the Teach for America article that discusses the TAL framework with reference to the TAL book. -- Visviva (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources uncovered plus 311 citations on Google scholar. Something is notable about this book. If that fully hinges on it's place in "Teach for America" and the framework of the same name, then merge seems fine. —siro χ o 05:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@siroxo: may i ask where you got the number of citations? lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this Google scholar page [15] works? Also, WP:ACADEMIC#Citation metrics has some caveats about Google scholar citation counts if you haven't seen it yet —siro χ o 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i haven't a clue what you're seeing, but i'm getting only 6 results. lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to see a "cited by <number>" beneath the first result there? —siro χ o 09:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, yep.

but what does this have to do with the notability of a book? lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like, enough academics used this book in some capacity to their research that if we say its "not notable" we may be missing something.

Since we're discussing it I've dived in a bit more, and found a 340 word book review by Joey Estes in Childhood Education(Vol. 88, Issue 6), so there's one example of something that can turn up in a citation of a book. —siro χ o 10:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teach for America per Visviva. Sal2100 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 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!} 05:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Hindu University women's rights protest[edit]

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

Most of the coverage is from the time it occurred in 2017. As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT, it lacks notability. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree with the deletion rational. The fact that there were further reported protests in 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2023 suggests that the article just needs updating. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, otherwise merge as a single paragraph to Banaras_Hindu_University#Student_unions_and_protests. On the one hand, on review of SailingInABathTub's links I get the impression that the subsequent protests at the university are discrete events with distinct motives, rather than a continuous series of protests. That inclines me to think that a list of protests in the university article might be the best way to go. On the other hand, this wasn't a pure flash in the pan. The sources in the article show coverage, some of it quite deep, mostly during the protest but extending over more than a year. Beyond what's in the article, a bit of searching shows repercussions into 2019, as well as international coverage during the protests. And WP:EFFECT is not a sine qua non of notability; it defines a conditional (IF effect of lasting significance THEN likely notable), but has nothing to say about the inverse case. Several of the other sections of NEVENT (breadth, depth and duration of coverage) would nudge at least gently in favor of notability. Overall I think the guidelines by themselves leave us in the may or may not be notable territory of WP:NEVENT point 3, with nothing pushing very strongly in either direction. On the third hand, there is also some continuing coverage of controversy over allegations and counter-allegations about the motivations for the protest into 2018. Untangling all this could be a job, but overall it seems like there probably is sufficient material to build an adequate article here, so I think the best option is to keep and improve the article. But the university article also seems like a good merge target that would make it possible to put different protests into context. -- Visviva (talk) 05:41, 22 July 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 E. C. Stearns & Company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George N. Stearns[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that would satisfy WP:BIO. Sources are woefully lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Stearns company article seems like a good choice. Oaktree b (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect Some sympathy with the idea of a redirect, but I'd worry that the Stearns Company itself, while a fascinating footnote, is hardly notable in its own right. Meanwhile, we're left with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexandermcnabb. I thought this discussion looked familiar. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avis Stearns Van Wagenen with a closure of redirecting to the company. I guess Clarityfiend was working through the Stearns relatives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Liz I changed my vote to support the redirect close - as I said, I worry about the notability of the redirect target, is all... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect would make sense if there were sources for the article being redirected to, and if the information here could be added to that article, but the article on E. C. Stearns & Company is one bare paragraph, and some copies of newspapers ads that are most likely original research. The creator is permanently blocked for copyright violations, so whatever interest there was in this company and its owners is probably over. Lamona (talk) 03:15, 23 July 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 merge‎ to Southern University Law Center#Notable alumni. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Gloria Lawson[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. No independent, third-party, reliable sources present, with the exception of a brief article from the AP regarding her death. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Louisiana. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly, there isn't much coverage. [16] is what I found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni, not enough to support an independent article in my opinion but worth keeping a reference on the list. - Indefensible (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that this article should be merged into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni as there are not enough useable sources to support an independent article. Paul H. (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni per Indefensible and Paul H. Sal2100 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SULC, same reasons as above. Kalethan (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. If more sources are found, I would be pleased to reconsider my !vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:45, 26 July 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 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eàrlaid[edit]

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

One obscure reference in a very old Gaelic-English dictionary, I don't see much else which suggests this is a notable term. Even if it is, we need more references to verify it. Even if we can verify it, WP is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICTIONARY JMWt (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Scotland. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farming in Scotland? Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jstor has 2 hits in obscure sources. And small mentions in gbooks but not enough to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DICDEF indeed, and that in Gaelic. If you're looking for a redirect, then perhaps History of agriculture in Scotland, but there's no discussion of this land ownership arrangement there - maybe Sharecropping? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this could be verified as a legal concept I would advocate a merge to Scots property law. In the absence of competent legal sources I would be tempted to redirect to List of English words of Scottish Gaelic origin, which currently contains it -- but I'm not sure that it verifiably should, as it's not clear to me that it's actually been used as an English or even Scots term. It's always a shame to lose content, but I'm not seeing enough encyclopedic value here to get too fussed about it. -- Visviva (talk) 22:16, 20 July 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 merge‎ to BMW M1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March-BMW M1/C[edit]

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

Does not pass notability for sports prototypes; I have a book regarding the topic (IMSA GTP, ISBN 978-0-7603-3069-2) and this car was only given a brief mention. Scant resources on the Internet, too. No expectation of increased coverage in the near future on my end. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 09:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BMW M1 could be an alternative to deletion. —siro χ o 11:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is, even if we do merge it, the three best sources in the article are nowhere near RS... X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we definitely don't have enough for WP:N right now, I think we have enough reliability for WP:V of this prototype for some sort of merge. I just don't really know the best destination. Do you know if this is the same car as "March-BMW M1" or is the /C a designation of a different car? —siro χ o 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The /C denomination refers to the car being adapted to Group C regulations, March Engineering is a company that specializes in racing cars. I think we should wait and see what other users have to say too. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into BMW M1 seems appropriate in my opinion as well. - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 20 July 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 procedural close‎. Blatantly disruptive nomination that does not even begin to engage with the extensive discussion from the first AfD, which was closed yesterday as no consensus. While there is no formal time limit imposed on the renomination of an AfD closed as no consensus, nominators are expected to make an effort to explain what has changed since the prior discussion, or else present a valid, novel argument for deletion that builds off of the prior discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism, race and genetics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Shameless POV-pushing that is written like an essay, and also the concepts in the title are not related (WP:AND) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Judaism, Science, Biology, Social science, and Israel. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Disruptive renomination less than 1 day after a no consensus closure. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: It appears that your recent AfD close has been undone by means of instant re-nomination. FYI. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some mish-mash of OR and stuff about almost anything it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: There was literally an 'in creation', a.k.a. 'don't nominate for deletion' notice up on the top of the page when you re-nominated it. Are you being intentionally disruptive, or did you simply not read past the title? Perhaps read the previous discussion closed by an admin literally a day ago and withdraw this community time-sink. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: I read the thing that said it shouldn't be nominated for deletion, yes, but I believe that this article is inherently non-neutral, and should not be given a grace period. -- QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was closed by an admin, after several admins conferred on the close. If they had thought a relisting was worthwhile, they would have relisted. This is just abuse of process, with intent. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment should have been put below mine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:25, 20 July 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. Here's hoping, again, that these sources find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Mad Scientists[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources. Two ELs that are not WP:IS. Fails WP:GNG. An WP:ATD would be to redirect to Michael Belfiore. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Technology, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have had book reviews/ discussions [17] and [18] Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep While Oaktree b has, indeed, found coverage (the NYT review is a bit rambling but is nevertheless a review - the Atlantic piece references the book but is not - AFAICS - dedicated to it), it's not quite enough. There's this NPR interview but it is an interview, which doesn't really help us with WP:GNG. Frankly, I'm amazed you could write a book about DARPA and NOT get way bigger coverage than this - it's an amazing and huge subject (they invented the Internet, right?). Anyone roots out one more review and I'm team 'keep' but right now I can't find it and the article is a miserable little thing that has been miserable for too long. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help [19]? Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whole bunch turn up in Gscholar using the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the following reviews:

Saletan, William (24 December 2009). "The Body Electric". New York Times.
Tatu, Robin (January 2010). "Crucible of Innovation". ASEE Prism. 19 (5): 50.
Simonite, Tom (2009). "Review: The Department of Mad Scientists by Michael Belfiore". New Scientist. 204: 56. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(09)62944-4. ISSN 0262-4079.
Pitt, David (2009). "The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA Is Remaking Our World, from the Internet to Artificial Limbs (Book review)". Booklist. 106 (4). American Library Association: 8. ISSN 0006-7385.

The last of these is rather short, but throwing it into the pile probably doesn't hurt. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:31, 21 July 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 merge‎ to Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey#Statistical leaders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey statistical leaders[edit]

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

This article was previously tagged for merging but a relevant discussion was never opened. Nothing seems to indicate the notability of its subject, as previously noted on the talk page. The article is also built primarily from a primary source from Michigan State. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge partially to Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey#Statistical leaders. Maybe just the top 5 in each category/breakdown. Sources aren't there for notability of these statistical leaders, and probably won't find much outside of school mentioning them together. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiVirusC: I'd be happy to perform the merge if we can find a reliable source for this information. Like I said, until today there were merge tags on the pages advocating for this change, but the inability to verify anything is what made me bring this to AfD. If no other source mentions this subject, we shouldn't be including this in the article at all per WP:WEIGHT. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the main article though at the section I linked, although not the entirety of it. Primary source are used as the source, which is typically fine aboutself references, but not for notability in a standalone. If you think that section should be removed completely from there, then that is different discussion. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the properly source information into the parent article on the team. This fails WP:NLIST with only databases as sources. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted. I'll also mention there are other similar "University ice hockey team statistical leaders" pages that could be included in this AfD as well, as they all likely will fall under the same rationale. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: You're absolutely right. I just took a look at the other pages created by Kkuchnir, the creator of this article. Turns out they've made nearly 300 of these "statistical leaders" articles since 2020. From the few that I've glanced at so far, it seems that they all have the same issues as this one. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:25, 23 July 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 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mildura Senior College[edit]

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

NN school. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete: I found some local coverage of this school, but that was not in sufficiently reliable publications to establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the hits in gnews are from the local paper "Sunraysia Daily" as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are we really saying that a large, century-old secondary school in a western country has no sources, not even printed ones? I really cannot believe that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you look for some? I could find mainly coverage in very local press. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said print sources, not online sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it‘s neither particularly big, nor does it seem to be very special in any other specific way. I‘m not sure that the fact that it‘s old by itself guarantees that appropriate sources exist. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly 1,000 pupils is hardly small! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The size is irrelevant, what is relevant is how it meets WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any reliable sources via Newsstream (database of Australia & New Zealand newspapers-- wider and deeper than Google), just many passing and routine mentions like this but nothing substantive that would meet GNG. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Cabrils (talk) 00:23, 27 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Fairly OddParents home video releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE, all sources are from buyers websites Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Television. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Ajf773: didn't someone suggest just PRODding these recently? You keep nominating them, and there's never any serious objection, so as long as they're eligible, why not just go the PROD route to help ease the constant trickle of these? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think I might’ve suggested that? It’s a good idea anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 22 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj S Nair[edit]

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

The article fails to establish why it is notable. Director has only directed 1 film, Monhiroe (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Monhiroe (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable director, sources are all yellow/red per sourcebot and the film he directed is red-linked. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the redlink caught my eye, too. If you're notable as the director of a redlinked film, we're already in trouble - and we're carrying a heavy weight of tags, there, too. Worse, 'Lessons', the redlinked film, is an anthology of four films by four directors, so we're already at 1/4 notability. Beyond that, there's nothing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not pass WP:DIRECTOR, lacks in-depth coverages and unable to prove notability. Also, the references given are mostly from unreliable sources. DSN18 (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree with all people above. Does not pass WP:DIRECTOR. Naomijeans (talk) 21:02, 22 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polonization of Eastern Germany (1945–1990)[edit]

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

This is a highly POVed piece of OR and/or a POVFORK of 1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans. The term "Polonization of Eastern Germany" doesn't really exist in scholarly literature in this context, and certainly, not in this language, which seems taken from some far-right German booklet or other rant ("the Germans native to the region of the region were expelled, subjected to collective guilt for the crimes of the German Nazi regime"... " over the war years, Polish ambition grew"... "Polish revisionist claims"... "Execution of Ethnic cleansing"... "Despite propagandistic claims that the areas were root Polish, the land was completely foreign to the Polish immigrants"... "Polish scholars sought to marginalize the German history"... "A recurring theme refers to the alleged ever-Polishness of the ares" and many more). While it is not unimaginable this topic could be written about, this has to be done in with respect of WP:NPOV, and using sources that are verifiable (99% of the sources cited here are offline books, making verification of the claims and language used, very hard). I suggest WP:TNT this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Germany, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, we already have articles on Germanisation of Poles during the Partitions, Germanisation in Poland (1939–1945), and Expulsion of Poles by Nazi Germany, plus others. Are all those articles objectionable as well? This article looks to be about the reversal of that process. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment:~~ while the topic of settling Western and Northern Territories is fascinating and definitely deserves an article in some form, the article discussed fails to portray the depth of the topic and focuses mostly on mistreatment of Germans and (select) foreign reactions. It isn't *that* bad for an article written by a user with such obvious biases (he managed not to mention any "ancient Germanic tribes" as he did in Masuria some time ago) and perhaps it could be saved if an effort is put to enrich and de-bias it. It'd be a colossal task however; POLITYKA's "Historic Assistant" has a whole number about it and it still does not feel enough. Whole books can be written that focus on the resettlement in just a single city, not to mention the entirety of "Recovered Lands". Even the topic that interests Tino so much, that is the treatment of Germans, was fairly different depending on the region (from some they were expelled in the very first years, but in others they continued to live for decades; and yet other areas have a surviving German plurality to this very day.) SMiki55 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to Delete per Marcelus, other articles do a better job at describing the topic SMiki55 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate this style of referencing, mainly because it is so good at obfuscating sources. I mean, Siebel-Achenbach p. 61, I couldn't even FIND 'Siebel-Achenbach', let alone have the energy left for P. 61. The average reader is in no way going to be able to verify or check any of this, and we in fact fail WP:VERIFY ("other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.") to a very worrying degree. Remembering WP:BURDEN, we also have an author who does not appear to have taken any effort to ensure that the source material is accessible, again a worry in an article covering an area so rife with nationalism and the legion dangers of POV. The nomination highlights a number of instances of concerning language - and all of these together lead me to a shudder and a delete vote, with the hope that someone, one day, creates something better IF this subject does, indeed, merit an article - which right now I honestly am left doubting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some first comments:
- The topics covered are clearly not in 1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans.
- I have deliberately not used 'classic' German expellee literature (save Siebel-Achenbach maybe). All works are recent publications by international historians, many of whom have Polish names. Why does the article fail on WP:VERIFY? Use your local state library or buy the books.
- Polonization is a well-known term. Polish authors maybe don't use it for the events after 1945, but international authors do.
- The article makes sure to provide the context that it was the Germans who started it. However, some commentors seem to have problems with applying some "evil terms" in the context, that are not usual in, I guess, Polish literature. The allegedly problematic statements are fully sourced, literally, from several sources (I could indeed add some more cross-references!)
- "the Germans native to the region of the region were expelled, subjected to collective guilt for the crimes of the German Nazi regime" -> that is even explaining and defending Polonization and putting it into context. All international comments on the events put it to this context.
- "over the war years, Polish ambition grew" - this defends the Polish from the Nazi/right-wing expellee interpretation that the Polish had wanted to annex the lands already before 1943. "Polish revisionist claims" is mentioned in the same context. But yes, the Polish had revisionist claims, anyone doubt that? Mostly every nation has.
- "Execution of Ethnic cleansing" -- was the expulsion a voluntary resettlement as the Communists claim? Please be honest and read the reports!
- "Despite propagandistic claims that the areas were root Polish, the land was completely foreign to the Polish immigrants". Please read some first-hand reports by Polish settlers. "Polish scholars sought to marginalize the German history" - of course, they did, and understandably!
Tino Cannst (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this topic is well-covered: 1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans, Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II, Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II, Recovered Territories, Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, Former eastern territories of Germany, History of German settlement in Central and Eastern Europe and probably some others I wasn't able to find. We don't need another article on virtually the same topic, especially since it's unverifable and contains a lot of controversial statements. Marcelus (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I certainly see the PoV, of which the author seems unaware, since they cite 'Germans were subjected to" and "Polish ambition grew" as examples of neutrality. I find Marcelus' list compelling, though, which is the main reason I am voting delete and not rewrite. I will change my vote if the author can demonstrate that this article covers some aspect of the topic that isn't already covered by the articles on that list. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to me it seems like a fork of Recovered Territories#Polonization of the Recovered Territories, but the content might be better suited under Former eastern territories of Germany#Polonization and the Treaty of Zgorzelec. In any case, there is no reason for this new article to exist on its own. --Glennznl (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article on this topic could exist (indeed as others have pointed out we already have several), but it would need a different title and different contents. For instance, 'Eastern Germany' is not the normal way to refer to these areas in English and it can easily be confused with 'East Germany'. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; that very phrase is very POVed. This is not something any non far-right politician would say in Germany, to avoid sparking a diplomatic row with Poland. In fact, given the border treaty between Poland and Germany, it is neutral to call those territories Western Poland. Or, with stress on clarity, like we do here: Former eastern territories of Germany. Eastern Germany redirects to New states of Germany anyway, adding to confusion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 27 July 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aggelos Zefkis[edit]

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

This is the biography of a living footballer who does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT. An English-language search reveals no substantive sources. A comprehensive Greek-language search was able to produce the following sources:

[20] Routine transfer announcement with minimal coverage regarding the player.
[21] Announcement of the renewal of his contract, evidently just copied from the club's announcement.

Overall there is no evidence of significant coverage that would be sufficient to merit an article. GGT (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. GGT (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the sources above, I found Sigma Live, but it's just a copy and paste from a club press release, so fails to confer notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cinadon36 08:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 12:59, 25 July 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 Algeria at the World Athletics Championships. It's snowing! (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 15:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 2022 World Athletics Championships[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are all very simlar in prose, and are all either unsourced or with a single source:

As noted above, all of these articles are either unsourced or have a single source, failing WP:GNG. Note relating AN/I thread. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out the 1993 one, as it is already at AfD in a seperate nomination, and the 2022 one, which I accidentally included despite being this discussion's title. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Algeria at the World Athletics Championships: The subject matter is notable but these aren't ready for main space yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: I should have mentioned this in the nomination statement, but some of these articles were draftified, but were immediately returned to mainspace by their creator. Draftification is likely not the best route here. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and changed my vote to delete or redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unlikely a drafting would make these articles better. A redirect to Algeria at the World Championships in Athletics is not ideal, as that article is sourced by one reference. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect: I would suggest draftification, but I don't know if that would help in this situation. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that the creator has now been indef blocked from article space per the ANI thread linked above. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They are unsourced or poorly sourced. How could you find all of the intricate information the articles provided without sources to back all of this up? HarukaAmaranth (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. It would not be impossible to source these, so preserving history seems like a good idea, unless there is concern that the same editor will return and restore without sourcing. In that case I would !vote delete all —siro χ o 08:34, 22 July 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 07:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on religious works[edit]

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

There is reason to believe that the intersection of copyright law and religious texts is notable (e.g. [22]), but as this article stands, it is entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and would have to be rewritten in its entirety to fit how reliable sources discuss the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Religion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I expected something sophisticated but there is nothing like that here. Centralknights (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR or SYNTH, but it's not really discussed in sources I find. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom and others above, a blantant violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. At best, a case of WP:TNT. Sal2100 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 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. (non-admin closure) Meets notability criteria for politicians as a state-wide commissioner. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ify Obinabo[edit]

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

Worked a special assistant to the governor and later an APPOINTED local government TRANSITION chairman. Does not meet NPOL. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, lacks notability - "Obinabo said that God is her mentor as well as Raymond Obieri, the former chairman of Intercontinental Bank." is the stuff of legends - the dance of the celestial and temporal. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She may not meet WP:NPOL, but she may still be notable. She's the first woman to hold a local office, and appears to have been Commissioner for Women and Social Welfare for the state at one point, and spearheaded the creation of domestic violence courts. She may be notable given all of these together, plus there is a lot of Google News sourcing I didn't have time to check. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll withdraw and move to draft as being a commissioner satisfies NPOL. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's at State, not national level... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...state/province -wide office. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:04, 21 July 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. This was obviously a very stupid way to have created a nomination, I will revisit this by creating separate nominations for articles like I have done so in the past. (non-admin closure)‎ Karnataka (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mistress and the Maids[edit]

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

Not notable for its own episode article, sources provided are just another database of all episodes. I am also nominating the following pages for deletion:

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable for an episode article:

"Board Wages"
"The Path of Duty"
"A Suitable Marriage"
"A Cry for Help"
"Magic Casements"
"I Dies from Love"
"Why Is Her Door Locked?"
"A Voice from the Past"
"The Swedish Tiger"
"The Key of the Door"
"For Love of Love"
"The New Man"
"A Pair of Exiles"
"Married Love"
"Whom God Hath Joined..."
"Guest of Honour"
"The Property of a Lady"
"Your Obedient Servant"
"Out of the Everywhere"
"An Object of Value"
"A Special Mischief"
"The Wages of Sin"
"A Family Gathering"* "Miss Forrest"
"A House Divided"
"A Change of Scene"
"A Family Secret"
"Rose's Pigeon"
"Desirous of Change"
"Word of Honour"
"The Bolter"
"Goodwill to All Men"
"What the Footman Saw"
"A Perfect Stranger"
"Distant Thunder"
"The Sudden Storm"
"A Patriotic Offering"
"News from the Front"
"The Beastly Hun"
"Women Shall Not Weep"
"Tug of War"
"Home Fires"
"If You Were the Only Girl in the World"
"The Glorious Dead"
"Another Year"
"The Hero's Farewell"
"Missing Believed Killed"
"Facing Fearful Odds"
"Peace Out of Pain"
"On with the Dance"
"A Place in the World"
"Laugh a Little Louder Please"
"The Joy Ride"
"Wanted – A Good Home"
"An Old Flame"
"Disillusion"
"Such a Lovely Man"
"The Nine Days Wonder"
"The Understudy"
"Alberto"
"Will Ye No Come Back Again"
"Joke Over"
"Noblesse Oblige"
"All the King's Horses"
"Whither Shall I Wander?" Karnataka (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Karnataka (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all No argument for BEFORE, and it would be quite unusual if all of these episodes were adequately researched before nomination and the significant effort to do so wasn't mentioned. Even if the episodes were NN, which has not been established, then merging to series or show would be an appropriate ATD, something the nominator doesn't consider. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On a quick search of the last episode listed, this academic paper mentions it by name, although I lack enough access to see how detailed a view it is. Obviously something that would have been caught in a BEFORE search for Whither Shall I Wander? if the false positives had been winnowed down to exclude poetry. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Agreed. Plus many of these articles have other associated information which makes this series of episode articles all the more notable. Rillington (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass deletion - I think each of these articles needs to be looked at on its own merits. Upstairs Downstairs is one of the most significant British Television dramas of the 1970s, and indeed it enjoyed success well beyond the UK, and some of the episodes have had much discussion before and since. Some were nominated for major awards - eg Another Year saw Alfred Shaughnessy nominated for a writing Emmy Award. I would agree that some of the articles as they stand have problems (many needing additional sources) and I suspect there are some where it could be argued that a full article is not needed, but I would respectfully suggest that a deletion discussion on each specific article is the place for that to be discussed and decided. Dunarc (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, my mistake was bundling the nomination together. When this closes (most likely keep) I'll review each further and nominate the articles here individually as it is clearly mentioned here in discussion that not all episodes may meet the notability guideline for episodes. Another appropriate solution like one suggestion is to group these into season articles and keep the notable episodes as stand-alone articles. Karnataka (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that is a good way to go. There are certainly some episodes that are not going to meet notability and others that will be borderline at best, so season articles would be useful. Dunarc (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. These episode articles have useful information and I see no reason to delete them. Transonic Crayon (talk) 23:45, 21 July 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. Nom withdraw with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felyne[edit]

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

There's no reception at all. In fact no indication of any notability and it's been in that state since apparently 2018 since it was created. Absolutely everything in here can fit comfortably in a parent article. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator keep It says that WP:BEFORE came up with nothing, but even the most basic Google search from me came up with significant examples of real-world significance, such as being used by the police in order to promote crime prevention, and a full article on the creation process of Felyne vocalizations. Gizmodo also covered Felynes, describing them as "a staple of the franchise" and "gosh darn adorable" among other reception comments. The idea that there's no indications of notability is simply not true. "Everything can fit comfortably in a parent article" is an invalid argument for an AfD, so WP:WRONGFORUM applies as well. I should add that the current state of an article does not equate to its notability, per WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that I found an additional article on Felynes from Washington Post of all places. Maybe not great on the reception front, but still technically a significant description of them from a sourcing standpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources provided above were considered prior to launching this AfD:

The police matter is a promotional event per the company's press release and the character's image is strictly used in that capacity.
VG247 is development, but does not offer any reception.
The Washington Post article is basically a game guide.

The only source I did miss of those was Gizmodo, which offered light reception. That was a mistake on my part. However the argument ath WP:WRONGFORUM applies is wrong, because pointing out an article's subject does not demonstrate a need to be separate from the parent articles is a valid point, and WP:NEXIST is difficult to cite here when the argument is being made that notable sources aren't being provided for this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SECONDARY. "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources". Simply being based on a primary source, i.e. a press release, doesn't somehow disqualify a source from being usable.

Featuring reception is also not a pre-requisite for a source being reliable and secondary. An article should preferably have some kind of reception to not be indiscriminate, but all sources do not need reception.

"Pointing out an article [..] does not demonstrate a need to be separate" is a matter for merge discussions. AfD is for pages that are considered completely unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the source should be understood as promotion and not the police asking to use their image directly as they asked about a partnership with the Monster Hunter franchise from what was stated. One offers a lot more strength to a subject than another (think like a Rapper mimicking a character out of appreciation vs a company asking them to use the character's image). And like I said with AfDs I'd *rather* be proven wrong and find there's discussion on a subject that can be cited meaningfully, I just didn't find it and was surprised the article hadn't changed much at all since 2018.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the sources brought up by Zxcvbnm and the arguments they made. The nominator's assertion that WP:BEFORE turned up nothing is incorrect. Haleth (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Point has been raised that this may not be the best avenue for discussion and Merge may be better, and I'm inclined to agree on reflection.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per sources above. I would very much prefer if the article is improved. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 16:08, 20 July 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!} 21:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mosab Al Khateeb[edit]

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

Not a notable musician. It is lacking in citations for his biography. An article that appears to be intended as a promotion. Dl.thinker (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Dl.thinker (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete? Okoslavia (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 13 July 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biographical article on a musician, much of which is poorly translated into English; for example "After that I release my current status and Jordan and cut off." is an incomprehensible sentence. In its short history, the article has been draftified twice, rejected at AfC, moved to mainspace, and had a CSD removed by an IP. If this was to remain, it would need significant copy-editing to bring it to an acceptable standard. If there is notability, it would seem to rest on the subject's participation in a season of Star Academy (Arabia) talent shows, but short items such as the JordanZad agency pieces do not establish attained notability. (A WP:REALITYBIO redirect could be an option, with protection to avoid it immediately reverting to an article.) Note also that the WP:SPA article creator has also created a Draft:مصعب_الخطيب here about the same person. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 20 July 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. After being relisted three times and being here at AFD for 28 days, there's no clear consensus either way for this article. Defaulting to no conensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ImportGenius[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, coverage in independent RS is essentially limited to statements of statements of attribution (the Wired article has a paragraph of description that could charitably be considered to begin a case for NCORP, but does not establish it on its own). The assembled bibliography suggests that ImportGenius is likely a reliable source on WP:USEBYOTHERS grounds, but does not establish notability. I was not able to find superior coverage searching online and Google Scholar. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Economics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a related essay at Wikipedia:Notability of reliable sources. It notes that (as of a couple years ago) "There are no special notability criteria for reliable sources proposed at this time.", but also notes it might be worth adding at some point (doesn't seem within scope for this AfD aside from IAR which I don't feel is appropriate here). —siro χ o 02:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does seem to be a decent split of reputable sources referring to it as "Import Genius" rather than "ImportGenius" despite their own website using ImportGenius. So I'd advise looking for sources under both aliases if you're seeking notable coverage - for instance the embedded NYT search above doesn't show this article due to the article referring to the organization as Import Genius:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/23/business/economy/china-russia-ammunition.html (Also in print - June 26, 2023, Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: China Sent Gunpowder To Russia)

I think that coverage like this wherein the piece focuses solely on data from Import Genius constitutes significant coverage by a reliable source, there's an extensive quote, clear attribution to ImportGenius and the subject matter itself - lethal aid to Russia from China in the Russo-Ukrainian War is pretty topical at the moment. Finbee (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete In many of sources, the discussion is around the data that was obtained through ImportGenius, not the company itself. I removed some contents I believed to be undue here. It was public information about the testimony made by the article subject with regard to a news story. If the news story covered in depth about a public testimony made by IG, citing the story and the testimony referenced is reasonable, however the subject testifying about something in the news doesn't add to the subject's notability and the inclusion isn't necessarily due. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment with no !vote... So, Google scholar has a source (working paper link, info about cited published version), that gives a bit more coverage than just referencing it as the source of data.
All information is collected from the electronic bills of lading filed by the shipper. Import Genius receives this information via a U.S. customs feed... Import Genius data are highly disaggregated, but do not include freight cost or value information... It is not possible to develop a product-specific measure of supply chain uncertainty. Import Genius reports only product descriptions. Without commodity codes, it is difficult to match products in the Imports of Merchandise data... Imports of Merchandise reports the country of origin for each import based on the production location. Import Genius reports the country where the product was loaded on the vessel. These locations may not coincide.

I'm honestly not sure if this qualifies as WP:CORPDEPTH or not. It seems to be more about Import Data's product (the data) rather than the company. Either way I'm not sure we would have enough for NCORP yet. This is still a hard call. —siro χ o 07:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done a thorough search through Google News, and all but a few rise above passing mentions. It gets a lot of hits because it's cited a ton (incl the NYT) as a source for investigations. Beside the one in-depth on-topic article by TechCrunch, it's not enough to give depth to the article. It was founded by brothers and scooped the iPhone 3G; DW calls it "the world's leading information service for the import-export industry"; they sued over airplane manifests, but lost. Very little, and not enough to combine to show notability. (also, lol @ this) SWinxy (talk) 00:37, 20 July 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources provided, otherwise merge as a new L4 section under Trade data#Commercial Sources. Overall I think it's fair to say we are somewhat on the bubble as far as CORPDEPTH and its friends; we have the TechCrunch article and occasional nontrivial but not "deep" analysis of the pros and cons of ImportGenius data in scholarly and semi-scholarly sources like those linked above. I also came across this case study on UXmatters, a source that has some indicia of reliability (e.g. disclosed editorial team, fairly widely cited on Wikipedia). (I don't think it's really possible to meaningfully separate company from product here, but if we do, I'd have no objection to refocusing this article on the data rather than the company.) Given that we are somewhere very near the NCORP threshold, in the spirit of applying the guidelines flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose, I think it is worth considering factors such as ImportGenius's status as a source widely cited in reliable sources and of course the fact that the existing coverage appears to be sufficient to meet the stated purpose of WP:CORPDEPTH (namely to make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization). Overall I think the balance weighs in favor of inclusion here. That said, many sources discuss ImportGenius alongside other sources of trade data like UN Comtrade and it might make the most sense for us to follow suit. -- Visviva (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except that they're not really a data provider. They're like the Grubhub of data. Many of sources briefly mention where they got the data, then they go right into the data (like saying how they got food through Grubhub, then go right onto talking about the food in depth, but not talk about Grubhub in depth) Graywalls (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trade data per Visviva. Best ATD we have right now, and I don't think there's a need to delete history on this. —siro χ o 09:19, 26 July 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 06:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Perlmutar[edit]

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

I see no indicia of encyclopedic notability whatsoever to this comedian apparently only mentioned in one paragraph of a single NYT article. BD2412 T 05:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 05:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This profile from Now Toronto [23] has a by-line. Now Toronto was a reputable local entertainment free newspaper, but it's been turned into an online only one. I think if we had one more source, we'd be ok. I can only find sourcing for various comedy festivals he's attended/performed at, one CBC Radio page where they host some of his material... He's almost famous, but not there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't see enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources apart from Now Toronto are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 20 July 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!} 04:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Zainab[edit]

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

This article has sat at the back of the NPP queue for a while now - was sent to draft, then returned to mainspace without improvement. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Siti Zainab is an Indonesian singer and actress, was a child actress in two Indonesian films in 1949 and four others in 1950 when, presumably, she was still a child actress. She starred in none of them. There is no evidence of her being notable as a singer. Of the three sources in the article, the first is apparently an interview with her and her parents when she was 16. The second two are unverifiable, neither source returns a result when searched for 'Zainab' - the same sources are present in the Indonesian WP article, which this article would appear to be a translation of. Her husband closed recently as 'no consensus' but also would appear to fail WP:GNG and her son has an article in Enwiki (both the same author) but not one in Indonesian and I'm having a hard time not nominating that article as well. It's all cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Indonesia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO, then it is not obvious from the available citations. For example we do not know if she has at least 2 leading roles. The issue here is that her career is from the 40's and 50's so it would be hard to verify anything and find proper sources, specially in Indonesian. We should probably be more cautious but based on the rules it should be deleted.Hkkingg (talk) 18:08, 22 July 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!} 04:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homixide Gang[edit]

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

Non-notable music duo. No charted singles, no major reviews of their work. Nothing even for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:A7, not notable, no references etc. Frzzl talk · contribs 18:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for speedy delete because the article has had references all along, but they are not necessarily reliable sources. The article also makes a claim of notability, though not a believable one. We can rely on a non-speedy regular delete process here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Their real-life street gang and the rappers they admire have made the news, but this duo has not. As a rap group they have not received reliable coverage and are only visible in the usual streaming services and social media promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found these sources. Presuming they are reliable and independent. https://ourgenerationmusic.com/exclusive/homixide-gang-tour-review/ and https://legendswillneverdie.com/2022/11/22/homixide-gang-homixide-lifestyle-review/ and https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/668288-homixide-gang-snot-or-not-album-stream. Not brilliant sources by any means, could just be promotional. Perhaps not sufficient to pass GNG, though I've witnessed keep !votes for similar levels of coverage. Rupples (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are signed under one of the biggest modern rappers, Playboi Carti and have went on tour with him, they are also going tour with many other famous rappers such as Ken Carson, Playboi Carti, and Destroy Lonely. They have performed at the most popular hip hop festivals such as Rolling Loud and they have 1.1 million monthly listeners. Calling them a "non-notable music duo" is a frivolous claim. PaintBuddy (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can the new sources be evaluated please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the three sources suggested by Rupples above, the first is a valid introductory profile from a rap magazine, the second is a blog-like album review, and the third is a very brief album announcement. All three build from the fact that the duo is being pushed by Playboi Carti. I voted to delete above but I'm willing to change my reasoning to WP:TOOSOON. I still think the sources are pretty sparse and based on their famous patron rather than themselves. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question. As things are now there's insufficient coverage to keep this. However, once Playboi Carti's "Antagonist" tour gets underway in September (scheduled to feature Homixide Gang) [24] I suspect this will be remedied. ~~Does it make sense to delete this for a couple of months only to likely have it recreated? Or is this of no relevance?~~ Rupples (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a block is placed, deleting an article now does not prevent a new one on the same subject from being created in the future. It happens quite often. New prose would have to be written from scratch, but if this rap duo becomes more notable in the future there would be more to work with anyhow. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify or~~ Delete. ~~This article's draft was rejected on 1 July 2023 but published anyway without improvement.~~ Agree with Doomsdayer520's comments re sources I put up. Currently found sourcing is inadequate to establish notability under GNG. WP:Crystal Ball applies to sourcing from the proposed tour. Rupples (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Draft:Homixide Gang exists. It looks as though Homixide Gang has been copied from that draft (with the Tour section added at the bottom). Scrubbing draftifying option as there's no point. Rupples (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional article , none of these are reliable sources [25] [26] [27] and tiktok?! Ratnahastin (talk) 07:14, 21 July 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. Clearly passes WP:NPOL and WP:NJUDGE. (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K.B.N. Singh[edit]

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

I have checked and as per my understanding it do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV also WP:GNG. It is not eligible to exist as standalone article. Admantine123 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as the Governor of Bihar and the Chief Justice of Patna High Court.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as they were, at one point, the governor of the Indian state of Bihar. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both the Judgeship and Governorship meet WP:NPOL. It's highly likely more WP:RS exist about this person, especially in non-English sources. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a governor, even an acting one. Plenty of coverage on GBooks in English, including [28]. Also, move the article to "K. B. N. Singh", incorporating the spacing. Curbon7 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Per others above, this is a clear WP:NPOL pass. Sal2100 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Per others above. Meets WP:NPOL. Perhaps someone could look for reliable sources in non-english formats and help the article out? Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:03, 21 July 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!} 04:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Patricia Rekhi[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Czech Republic, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Slovak article, too: sk:Ayesha Patricia Rekhiová.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looking at the Slovak article. is a small mention of Rekhi and more about her husband. sources 3 and 4 are primary, and 5 is a dead link. Source 2 may be the only worthy one. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Per Nomination. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO Charsaddian (talk) 12:05, 22 July 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. Insufficient participation after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Vaikundar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD ended in no decision. I've reviewed the sources and the extensive citations used, not seeing critical discussion of the individual's work that is needed to determine notability. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is complicated, and might require a subject-matter expert to way in. It's not about if sources exist, but whether this subtopic is sufficiently distinct. Definitely at least a little bit of TNT needed, but I'm leaning weak keep--I can see it being more passable if it was very well written. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Everyone,

This refers to the two articles published in the following links of Wikipedia under caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vaikundar.

The two divergent articles referred to above, according to me has inherent contradictions in both, and does not reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar, who was reportedly the incarnate of Lord Narayana if one go by the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is akin to Veda Agama to the followers of Lord Vaikundar as the contents in them are reportedly dictated by the Lord himself to his disciple Hari Gopalan.

The observation that ‘few events referred to in the mythology have yet to be validated historically’, events mentioned in the historical Vaikundar, mention that ‘Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker’ cast doubt whether Lord Vaikundar was indeed divine incarnate or a human being like a preacher? Ayya Vaikundar was certainly not a healer or miracle worker like preachers, but divine incarnate and cured the suffering by his divine power like Perfect Masters of yester years.

Expressed view that ‘The mission of the Destruction of Kali involves a joint role of Lord Narayana and Ayya Vaikundar’ leaves a feeling that Lord Ayya Vaikundar and Lord Narayana were two different personalities whereas Lord Vaikundar was incarnate of Lord Narayana himself. The divine nature of Lord Vaikundar got revealed when the cruelty and tortures inflicted by the King of Travancore had in no way affected divine Lord Vaikundar who was in human form, instances of which find no mention anywhere in these articles. Mention as Akilam and Akilathirattu confuse one to believe that they were two different texts.

Therefore in my opinion is that the contents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai alone, which is the primary source for all.

If what I have read, understood and found in several sources was that Lord Vaikundar was undoubtedly Lord Narayana’s incarnation, manifested on earth in human form to end the misery and sufferings of eighteen classes of oppressed and suppressed. Therefore it would be appropriate if the life glory of Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions. They could come as historical timeline or historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any.

I would recommend deleting this page and redraft the contents in Ayya vaikundar page to reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar as per primary source holy akilathirattu and other supporting documents wherever they are available.

Also read,

http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx

https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history

https://ayyavaikundar.in/

https://temple.dinamalar.com/news_detail.php?id=11667

contact: @Illayaram sekar
Thanks. Illayaram sekar (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Hi Everyone,

This refers to the two articles published in the following links of Wikipedia under caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vaikundar.

The two divergent articles referred to above, according to me has inherent contradictions in both, and does not reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar, who was reportedly the incarnate of Lord Narayana if one go by the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is akin to Veda Agama to the followers of Lord Vaikundar as the contents in them are reportedly dictated by the Lord himself to his disciple Hari Gopalan.

The observation that ‘few events referred to in the mythology have yet to be validated historically’, events mentioned in the historical Vaikundar, mention that ‘Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker’ cast doubt whether Lord Vaikundar was indeed divine incarnate or a human being like a preacher? Ayya Vaikundar was certainly not a healer or miracle worker like preachers, but divine incarnate and cured the suffering by his divine power like Perfect Masters of yester years.

Expressed view that ‘The mission of the Destruction of Kali involves a joint role of Lord Narayana and Ayya Vaikundar’ leaves a feeling that Lord Ayya Vaikundar and Lord Narayana were two different personalities whereas Lord Vaikundar was incarnate of Lord Narayana himself. The divine nature of Lord Vaikundar got revealed when the cruelty and tortures inflicted by the King of Travancore had in no way affected divine Lord Vaikundar who was in human form, instances of which find no mention anywhere in these articles. Mention as Akilam and Akilathirattu confuse one to believe that they were two different texts.

Therefore in my opinion is that the contents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai alone, which is the primary source for all.

If what I have read, understood and found in several sources was that Lord Vaikundar was undoubtedly Lord Narayana’s incarnation, manifested on earth in human form to end the misery and sufferings of eighteen classes of oppressed and suppressed. Therefore it would be appropriate if the life glory of Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions. They could come as historical timeline or historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any.

I would recommend deleting this page and redraft the contents in Ayya vaikundar page to reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar as per primary source holy akilathirattu and other supporting documents wherever they are available.

Also read,

http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx

https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history

https://ayyavaikundar.in/

https://temple.dinamalar.com/news_detail.php?id=11667

contact: @Illayaram sekar

Thanks. Illayaram sekar (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is very low participation. Please focus on policy issues and not theology. This is not the place for it. Actually, there is nowhere on Wikipedia where these long, unsourced posts on the divinity of Lords are appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 20 July 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 11:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghandour Cosmetics Limited (cosmetics company)[edit]

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

Non-notable company - not seeing anything here that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH.

Abandoned draft: [29]. KH-1 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Here, none of the references meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The closest source I found not already in the article is an article about the appointment of a brand ambassador, and that simply does not qualify. Also, I can't see where ref 9 (le Faso) mentions the article subject? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:19, 26 July 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!} 05:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Kallachi[edit]

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

Non-notable online content creator/streamer person. Nothing found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Youtube sees a massive coverage over this individual and has been trending over social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.185.129.20 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof that it's not notable, we don't consider trending to be a RS, we need people in the media discussing this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews comes up with a few Tamil hits but nothing indepth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable internet personality, also relying on unreliable or WP:UGC sources [30][31][32] Ratnahastin (talk) 07:17, 21 July 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!} 01:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Niemiec[edit]

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

American former soccer player who made 27 21 career club appearances before retiring. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG, with a complete lack of secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note when searching for sources that her name is now Courtney Tole per her current employer. -Socccc (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Oregonian ran a short feature on her going from undrafted to starter in 2014, as did CBS News Philly/KYW Newsradio; unclear if that's enough. The rest I could find were more clearly not SIGCOV. The club appearances count was also wrong (21, not 27). Also added detail about her post-retirement move to coaching and changed her name. -Socccc (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Wee Curry Monster:, @Let'srun:, Per Soccc. Has sources like [33], [34], and [35], made 27+ appearances in the NWSL, regarded as one of best women's league in world... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to sources listed by Das osmnezz. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY, per sources highlighted within this discussion which are now cited in the article. Kudos to Socccc for improving the article which is in much better shape than when it was first nominated for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Socccc and Das osmnezz, enough to meet WP:GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think there's just enough coverage in The Oregonian and CBS New Philadelphia pieces to suggest WP:GNG can be met here. Jogurney (talk) 14:33, 25 July 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!} 21:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dariacore (album)[edit]

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

Following up from Talk:Dariacore (album)#Notability. As I said in that discussion, "few of the sources primarily focus on this album (e.g. That Pitchfork quote is a single line from a review of a different album), and those that do include Sputnikmusic which I'm still not convinced is actually reliable enough on its own to support notability that strongly." While there is promise in regards to an NMUSIC pass given the apparent notability of the Dariacore subgenre and this album's clearly very important role in establishing said genre, I don't think this album clears GNG with the present sourcing. There are good sources, but not many and not enough. I think a merge/redirect to Jane Remover would be most appropriate, but this is too great an edge case to go without a full discussion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the comprehensive review by a Sputnikmusic staff member, it was considered one of the best albums of 2021 by The Fader (with the article also having significant coverage specifically about the album), and created a genre (source). In my view, this makes the album independently notable. I also believe it has enough content to be its own article. Skyshifter ^talk 01:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There are 2, independent, reliable sources on the subject with sig cov. (The Fader's best list and Sputnikmusic). Due to this, I don't have confidence putting a full Keep. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether additional sources are sufficient. Coincidentally, Sputnikmusic was just deleted earlier today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an edge case. I'm not personally convinced that Sputnikmusic, which lacks editorial policies and has only some but not much USEBYOTHERS (i.e., Metacritic), is RS. However, the music Wikiproject considers it to be a RS per here. The review is full-length and SIGCOV, so I'm counting this as one source towards GNG/NALBUM even if it's not the strongest. The Fader includes it in a list of best albums, and is RS & independent, even though the coverage here at merely one paragraph is at best borderline SIGCOV. I am not convinced by other sources, which are non-SIGCOV or non-independent. Though, it is worth noting that one RS, Insider (which is usually WP:MREL but RSP notes it's reliable for culture) credited this towards contributing a subgenre, but to me the ref in question doesn't pass SIGCOV. Therefore, at best this is a weak passing of GNG/NALBUM, and I'm neutral regarding whether keep or merge is better, but I would oppose redirection or deletion. VickKiang (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think VickKiang described it best. To me, when an article is borderline keep/delete, it's better to keep it. I believe the Sputnikmusic source counts for both SIGCOV and is an RS + The Fader mention is helpful as well. If the album was so well received (as described by The Fader), some other sources may pop up too, further strengthening this argument. Regardless, the album in its current state barely counts as notable to me, but it still counts! ULPS (talk) 20:46, 20 July 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!} 01:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narine Aleksanyan[edit]

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

fails WP:N. When performing WP:BEFORE, I found little to nothing on her in English that could be used. I don't speak Armenian so perhaps there's something on her in Armenian, but the Armenian-language article has very few references and I doubt they can be used. There is something about her winning the Artavazd Awards at some point that might place her in notability, but I could find no reliable citation saying that she in fact won this award. Jaguarnik (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Armenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Armenian Actress, meets WP:NACTOR due to winning Best Actress of the Year Artavazd Awards, a notable award that has a wiki page.Naomijeans (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also added 2 new citations. Naomijeans (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. However, WP:NACTOR says the 2 general criteria for actor notability is a) significant roles in multiple projects b)unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. As far as I can tell she does not fulfill either criteria. I put into auto-translate the citations you provided - it looks like they are both interviews with Aleksanyan; sources proving notability should be secondary and independent of the subject, which interviews aren't. Kind regards, Jaguarnik (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The character Janna in Domino (TV series) is a recurring role, but it doesn't seems to be one of the lead characters. Hopefully more sources can be found, because the current ones have issues about independence. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She meets Wikipedia:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Naomijeans (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Archives908 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one week's relist in order to search for additional sources that might establish notability. It sounds like existing sources do not fulfill this purpose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant roles in multiple shows/films, as needed to meet WP:NACTOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She meets Wikipedia:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Naomijeans (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Artavazd awards well-known and significant? There are many awards given out for films and actors, not all of them are necessarily significant. And a wikipedia page proves nothing about notability by itself, just that someone made an article about it. See WP:ARTN. Jaguarnik (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would like also to point out that WP:ANYBIO says "People are likely'; to be notable if they meet WP:ANYBIO...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Assuming she did meet WP:ANYBIO, by the words of ANYBIO, that wouldn't necessarily make her notable. She fails the 5 criteria of WP:GNG. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:05, 22 July 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 00:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMD Railtech[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE showed no sources that satisfied this. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Australia. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a WP:PROMO. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding enough sources to support the article. - Indefensible (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't pass the bar at present. Independent company so no good merge target. Principal is NN as well. gidonb (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly a promotional article. a search brings up nothing. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. --Devoke water 12:19, 22 July 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.