< June 11	June 13 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahnaz Angury[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Most of the coverage is articles written by her and not WP:SIGCOV about her. Out of the sources supplied 2,3 and 6 are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON in her career, although there is one feature article about her in The Chronicle (which quotes her but also includes some editorial prose which was presumably fact checked). Happy to reconsider if another article is found, but at the moment the content itself also seems thin. Draftification could be another option. No prejudice if this article is recreated again in the future once there is more independent secondary coverage about her. Doesn't satisfy WP:NJOURNALIST as I'm not seeing evidence that her work is widely cited (via Google.com.au and Wikipedia Library). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There's this brief mention [1]. Plenty of mentions in the Daily Mail, which isn't an RS. Hasn't met GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Daily Mail, in this case the problem is that she wrote articles for them as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:JOURNALIST seems WP:TOOSOON. Maliner (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON makes one think that in the future the article could be re-created, for which a history would be useful, but there is nowhere to redirect, I suppose. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON Karnataka (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 198 appears to be right on the hairy edge of the upper limit of sequential integers that deserve an article. It is nearly identical to its neighbor articles, 197 (number) and 199 (number), although it has quite a lot more references (probably owing to its more embattled history at AfD, DRV, and AfC). Keep/delete voters are split right down the middle, numerically speaking. Delete voters at this discussion argue that the number isn't notable enough for its own article, and that the number doesn't have enough significant or interesting properties to write about. Keep voters argue that deleting this article would result in an awkward gap in the number articles from 1-200 (which is obviously not based on any policy, but more of an IAR argument, albeit an arguably valid one), potentially causing issues with navigation templates. Keep voters also implied that, in practice, notability criteria for numbers seems to be inconsistently applied, and applying the same level of scrutiny would likely result in the deletion of many other number articles between 101-200, which would be an outcome that most likely wouldn't find consensus if it were proposed.

This is a difficult discussion to close. While the policy-based arguments favor deletion, there are some convincing IAR arguments that pull it back in the other direction and make it impossible to find a solid consensus here. Some participants suggested a further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers) on whether the top end of the range of "automatically notable" integers should be expanded from 101 to 201, and I agree that this would be a useful discussion to have before nominating this article for deletion again. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

198 (number)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has really changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number) (March 2022) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 9. User:Robert McClenon promoted this from draft space over significant objections from participants in those discussions. There still are not multiple properties of any mathematical significance for this number (companion Pell number might count, but that is only one property and doesn't even have its own separate article), and no in-depth coverage of this number in any reliable sources (its coverage in OEIS is merely as one among many other numbers in several unimportant database entries). The article has been crammed with even more junk trivia factoids than the version from the AfD, saving it from G4 speedy deletion, but that does not make it notable. Note that the draft discussion also debunked the claim that there was ever a consensus for the statement in Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers that we should automatically include all numbers up to 200. Without in-depth coverage of this specific number in any reliable source, this does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per the nomination, my comment at the previous AfD and my comments during the AfC process [2][3]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep Being the only number from 1-200 that didn't have an article, it seems rather sad to not include it. It is far better sourced than many of the others, (I know all about WP:OSE too). It seems to be a net benefit for the encyclopaedia to include it. Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The very first "citation" is to a website that does not include the stated claim (or any other useful content, for that matter). The rest is "this integer appears somewhere in OEIS" level cruft, which is no better than the referencing was in, say, 431 (number), which was turned into a redirect [4]. If we're going by personal feelings of sadness, I'd say that it reads like scraping the bottom of the barrel for bullet points, more like a TV-Tropes-for-Numbers than an exposition of mathematics from which anyone could learn anything, which I find rather less than happy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are articles about numbers necessarily required to be "an exposition of mathematics"? Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're required by policy to not be indiscriminate piles of trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now provided a justification for why the first property is true in the article itself. That citation was an accident. Natureader (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what we call "Original Research" and is not suitable for Wikipedia. We don't include mathematical facts, even if provable, if there's no written documentation showing that others have discussed them first. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I have instead found another source. I read in the WikiProject Numbers page that if you can verify it with a pocket calculator, it doesn't need a citation, so I thought it didn't need a citation. Thank you for your explanation. Best, Natureader (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep per Theroadislong's decision. CastJared (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and restore the previous redirect along with history. Firstly, I agree this article should be deleted for all the reasons already stated. Secondly, this deletion review resulted in the previous incarnation of the page being restored (as a redirect) in order to preserve history. That history now appears to have been lost - I assume the article was unceremoniously deleted to make way for this new draft? I think we must keep the previous history. IIRC the previous incarnation of the article had a sensible Talk page conversation about interestingness and why the article should remain a redirect. It's a pity that the nature of deletion means we now can't refer to that discussion in this discussion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ask User:Robert McClenon where the history went — he performed some complicated sequence of round-robin moves between multiple numbered versions of this title in draft space, some of which have been subsequently deleted as "obviously made in error", in order to clear out the title from article space and move the draft into it. Probably the history went into one of those numbered drafts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Answer - The history is in Draft:198 (number), right where I put it. That wasn't one of the trivial errors that I made. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Comment' - 1. Why do you think that I tagged the draft ((R with history))? But you didn't look at the draft, because you thought reasonably that it was the draft. 2. The next time that I do this, I will put a comment on the talk page of the accepted article telling where the history is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keeping the history in the draft namespace seems unwise. There is a good chance of it being speedily deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now also think we need to merge talk page history (if that’s even possible) as both old and new articles now have discussions on notability. If deletion prevails and 198 becomes the lowest number without an article, it will become/remain a magnet for reincarnation, and all these discussions need to be kept visible to avoid retreading the same ground. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I don't think that the policy of Wikipedia is not for trivia necessarily applies to the details of the noble art and science of number theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's policy. It applies everywhere. Number theory is just as susceptible to oddities, frivolous curiosities, and trivia as any other area of human activity. XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and restore the previous redirect and history. -- Whpq (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep By that metric of applicability, every mathematical property that is not immediately relevant to an application of Number Theory is frivolous and needs to be thrown out. If we were to truly apply that rule to the articles we currently have, almost no number passes them. Try to tell me 100 has any content if you remove the trivia? It doesn't even have three facts that link to OEIS sequences where it is in the first five terms, which is the metric David Eppstein seems to think determines whether a number should be given an article or not. "But 100 is important because it is too small to not have its own article/significant in base 10." That's completely subjective, i.e. there's a humanistic reason why it should be included in our encyclopedia (we like base 10 and consider that number small). By that standard, there is nothing wrong with including 198, especially since it is otherwise a rather dissatisfying gap in a long list of articles. We're not concerned about space availability, and there's enough content here that it isn't a pointless stub (the primary concern of WP:NUM's guidelines on creation) in comparison to when it was previously deleted. Bass77_talkcontribs 03:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
100 has more than half a page in the Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers [5]. 198 has no entry. 100 is also very early in the nice sequences OEIS:A011557 and OEIS:A000537 both of which have Wikipedia articles (I'll leave finding them as an exercise), and has a lot of cultural significance. (We have numbers whose notability rests mainly on cultural significance; 117 (number) is an example.) 198 has none of that. Also, see WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
198 is "very early" in the nice sequences https://oeis.org/A050250 and https://oeis.org/A001078 too, as I mentioned in the draft comments. Why are they not acceptable as interesting? I think at least the first one (nonzero palindromes less than 10^n) should be interesting enough. This and the property of being the first number representable as the sum of four squares in ten different ways (which has an article about the sequence: Jacobi's four-square theorem) were not mentioned in the previous 198 article, as far as I checked. Natureader (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, let me explain why I don't think A050250, "Number of nonzero palindromes less than 10^n", is an interesting property. The number of palindromes of length $n$ , over an alphabet of any fixed size $\sigma$ , is easy to count: ${\displaystyle \sigma ^{\lceil n/2\rceil ))$ . The number of palindromes of length at most $n$ has a more complicated formula. The number of palindromes of length at most $n$ where for some reason exactly one of the alphabet symbols is forbidden in the first position has an even more complicated formula. Now apply that formula to $\sigma =10$ and $n=3$ . There are so many arbitrary choices here that you could make a similar number of arbitrary choices and get any number you liked. There is no mathematical significance to having a palindromic digit representation, and no historical reason (for instance in early numerology) for being interested in decimal palindromes. It's only trivia, of a sort liked by people who like trivia about decimal representations, and not even particularly significant among such things. OEIS lists one published paper counting these numbers [6], not enough to make a case for notability of these counts, and the number 198 appears once in this paper, as a line in a table, not enough for WP:SIGCOV of its role as one of these counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep If we're going to have articles on numbers at all, and it's not immediately clear to me why we should as someone who has never thought about it before, the natural thing to do for a "non-notable" number would be to redirect it to the list of integers between 100-199 as we do with other "non-notable" numbers, but given every other number in the set seems "notable" enough for its own page, the correct "solution" would be to redirect it to a list where it would be the only entry. Therefore, given this isn't a "normal" topic, we "should" probably keep it just out on IAR/organisational concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we maybe add "just one more" to WP:ATA? If we repeatedly applied that principle to numbers we would get infinitely many articles, which is obviously an impossible-to-maintain situation. How about stopping where actual notability runs out, instead? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the induction of this argument to the ATA hall of fame. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it's not a "just one more" argument, and I don't appreciate you trying to classify my argument as such. I have absolutely no idea why 198 (number) is not notable but 135 (number) is. Is it because 135 has more things to disambiguate? Is anyone arguing the page for 135 (number) passes GNG? Why is the mathematical trivia for 197 (number) valid for notability but not the ones at 198 (number)? Whether we have pages for numbers seems completely arbitrary apart from maybe pi because we're not applying rules consistently, and since we're not applying rules consistently, and the correct thing to do would be to redirect to a page that would list all the "non-notable" numbers between 100 and 200, which for whatever reason is exactly one number. The best option would be to delete this, 135, 197, and all of the other numbers which fail GNG and are only sourced to one mathematical encyclopedia, but I don't expect that would be very popular, so we may as well be inclusive. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:WAX. The 135 article in its current state is nearly as bad as the new 198 article. Also "more things to disambiguate" indicates some confusion; these are not disambiguation articles. We have a separate disambiguation article 135 (disambiguation); number articles are not and should not be confused with number disambiguation articles. I don't know if the three line entry for 135 in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers [7] counts as WP:SIGCOV. The existence of other bad articles does not justify one more bad article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, based on your response, you would be open to an AfD on 135 (number) following this AfD, if it were to close as delete? Because what we're trying to figure out at the moment is whether these numbers are "notable" or not. We do have WP:NNUM, but since this is at AfD it's clear WP:NNUM is difficult to apply, if 198 gets deleted but 197 or 135 gets kept for having what amounts to essentially the same article for the lay reader, down to the sourcing, suffering basically the same problem as other recently deprecated SNGs - it's just that NNUM never really needs to be applied at AfD. I think the decision is between deleting a lot more numbers than just 198 or serving readers like myself who aren't computer science professors and who may not necessarily understand why 198 doesn't have an article when every other integer 0-200 does. (Furthermore, if these are not disambiguation articles, then we should probably be cleaning some of them up. 167 (number) is a great example.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not yet formulated an opinion on the notability of 135. It would take more external research. The current article does not convince me of its notability, but it might be notable through material not yet present in the article, or through some kind of significance that is mentioned in the article but buried among all the cruft there to the point where I have not seen it.

I have been cleaning many of these up, slowly, with continued friction from some editors who like having them loaded with cruft. It was through attempting to clean these up in 2022, and not finding sufficient material to base an article on, that I initiated the first AfD of 198. I have not yet attempted to clean up 135. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the explanation - I understand your position a bit more clearly now. I'm not familiar with the history so perhaps this was discussed elsewhere before the first AfD as well, maybe at RfC. My argument is pretty simple but features a number of conditionals: if WP:GNG applies only, then this should be deleted. If WP:NNUM applies only, if it meets NNUM then it should be kept and if it doesn't then it should be deleted. However, as a SNG, NNUM would let us have these articles and have them not need to meet GNG, which is absolutely fine by me - these are a special category of article, but simultaneously, if the argument is all numbers 0-200 meet NNUM except 198, which is what I believe the initial AfD argued, then we should IAR keep this because the difference between 197 and 198 is not sufficiently different enough in practice that someone who's not into mathematics would understand why one has an article and the other does not, and we should instead keep 0-200 as a set of articles that can be on the site. If we're at the point where everything has to pass GNG, though, after the SNG discussions - I've been on a break - then this should probably be instead merged and redirected somewhere, and we can probably start doing that with other articles in the 0-200 range as well. Barring any specific consensus, I would default to keeping the article in a standalone form. SportingFlyer T·C 21:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a somewhat-related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Move trivia and disambiguation content out of number articles, but more about what content we should include than which numbers we should include. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's worth pointing out here that according to WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others." The cutoff point of 101 seems arbitrary, so there's a case to be made that it should be raised to 200 to smooth out the 198 gap. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most number articles are written like WP:TRIVIA anyways. We should have a wider discussion about their purpose. Something like 60 (number) is clearly notable for historical Base 60 reasons alone but it's not really helpful to readers - but that's a conversation for another day. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep – I !voted weak delete last time, but the article does not seem significantly below the standard of similar pages. (Although that sounds like OSE, it does help define the threshold.) Together with the arguments above, we should probably keep 198 to complete our set of 1–200, but it's still marginal. Certes (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per common sense. Article is just a collection of trivial data. Cinadon36 08:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and restore the previous redirect and history: Does not appear to pass WP:NNUM and reads as a pile of trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep - I would support keeping, even if this page only had the links to 197 and 199. If the content is a problem - prune it. But don't reduce navigation for our readers by deleting this page. That doesn't make any logical sense at all. - jc37 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Week keep. From WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others. This avoids having, say, a gap for 38." The cutoff point of 101 here is arbitrary and could easily be changed to 200 or 201. I don't see a reason why a single gap below 200 is less unsatisfying than a gap at 38.The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per nom, the fact that there is a page for 197 or any other number doesn't make this one better. Artem.G (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete it's a bunch of trivia, with no obvious significance. All of the non-notable numbers below 198 should be deleted too imo, just in case someone wants to use the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "navigational completeness" arguments (the navigational completeness argument makes no sense here anyway, people don't need a list to know what number comes after 197). AryKun (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who benefits from these articles being deleted? Bass77_talkcontribs 22:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It gives us practice patching up all the number navigation templates, List of numbers, etc. to work around a hole in the sequence. Certes (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, what makes a number notable? That's really the crux of this entire AfD, but this may not be the best place for that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I would argue most numbers aren't notable, even below one hundred. I would think only small numbers -1–20, fundamental constants like e, π, and i, and then numbers with some real-world notability or GNG like 100, 1000, the -illions, and googol should have separate articles. AryKun (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed the first AFD as "Delete" but this go-round, I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a lot of the arguments are above are about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "niceness", not whether the actual number is notable outside of a set. The "in mathematics" section is almost entirely just math trivia, no different from an "in pop culture" cruft section about a fictional character, and then the rest of it is just run-of-the-mill trivia combined with a disambiguation. There's not actual sources attesting to passing the GNG here, and I don't think any of these articles that are cited to On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete and restore redirect, as the keep !votes are largely based on aesthetic arguments without addressing notability. To those wishing to keep the article, I would suggest proposing a change to WP:NNUM so that it includes all numbers up to 201, rather than 101. Based on this discussion, it would probably gain some traction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think delete !votes are any better on this front: "crammed with junk trivia factoids", "cruft", "scraping the bottom of the barrel", "some editors who like having them loaded with cruft", "pile of trivia", and "bunch of trivia" sound like aesthetic arguments to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trivia and cruft are relevant to deletion discussions insofar as they describe issues relating to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, that was a highly selective and misleadingly cherry-picked set of quotations. In particular, the "crammed with junk trivia factoids", taken from my nomination statement, was from a part of the nomination statement explaining why G4 speedy deletion does not apply. The same nomination statement concludes with a clear guideline-based statement directly addressing (the total lack of) WP:GNG-based depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Note that, contrary to many claims, the contents of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not "it is forbidden to make any a posteriori claims whatsoever about consensus". This would be absurd, which is why it is not a policy or guideline. What this link actually goes to is a section of an essay about a specific type of fallacious reasoning where somebody argues for an article to be kept on the sole basis that another (very crappy and unlikely to survive AfD) article exists. It's quite unclear to me how this is supposed to apply to situations in which the "other stuff" is the subject of robust consensus. Here are all of the AfDs for numbers under 200: 1 (joke nom), 7 (joke nom), 9 (keep), 42 (joke nom), 69 (joke nom), 134 (keep), 138 (keep), 155 (keep), 178 (keep), 198 (delete). Here, other stuff does not exist as a random coincidence, but rather because people repeatedly agreed that it should exist. Even apart from that, I don't think that saying something is "cruft" or "junk trivia factoids" is a good deletion rationale (indeed, there is a section in the same essay named after this: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). As for the merits of the article: there are indeed OEIS citations, but there are also other citations (like the Brazilian emergency phone number, the dollar-coin ridges, and the NumberADay ref). It is not the greatest article in the world, but it seems basically fine to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AfD's for 134, 138, and 155 were a decade and a half ago. It's reasonable to question whether that amounts to a meaningful example to follow now. The article for 178 made a better case for its existence on straight-up mathematical properties than this one (it got two "keep" !votes and one "weak keep", from editors who in this discussion have come down as "weak keep", "delete" and "delete" respectively). XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shree Kshetra Korthan Khandoba Devastan[edit]

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

The subject was not mentioned in the cited book, and the Marathi version of the article relies on the official website of the temple. Searches online only found two Marathi articles, both were announcements of upcoming festivals that would be held in the temple in 2021. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and Maharashtra. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per above. There are no sources that use this name; perhaps this temple is better known by another name. DreamRimmer (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Seems to have a large number of devotees attending the Yatra if this report is reliable. https://marathi.abplive.com/photo-gallery/news/maharashtra-khandoba-yatra-parner-ahmednagar-pimpalgaon-korthan-khandoba-jatra-photo-latest-news-1139136. Also this about a 451 year old inscription https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/local/maharashtra/ahmednagar/news/published-marathi-translation-of-korthan-khandoba-temple-inscription-451-years-ago-unveiled-by-pandurang-gaikwad-129686787.html. As it was "neglected" for many years it's likely difficult to uncover historical sources for the site. Rupples (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete could not find any WP:SIGCOV in gnews or gbooks. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. – bradv 00:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delaware Tennis Club Tournament[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this one-off tournament. Prod removed without improvements and with arguments which don't really address the lack of indepth sourcing. Sources are passing mentions or routine coverage only. Fram (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the tournament (or at least one with that name) lasted longer than one year - this article from 1925 mentions the "twelfth annual Delaware Tennis Club Tournament" and discusses it a bit. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Mention of the 1886 edition here, but oddly it mentions C. B. Davis as the runner-up (while teamed up with Leigh Bousall) and Remak as the winner (with Cowperthait)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Apparently it decided the lawn tennis championship of the southern states: [8]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Other articles on it: [9] [10] and [11]. The last one makes it seem like there was a doubles and singles event, the former of which Remak/Cowperthait won and the latter I guess Davis won, so that issue is cleared up. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Another source discussing it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- A one-off tournament held over 130 years ago does not merit an article. Even if it was held annually for some years the answer would be the same. If we had an article on Delaware Field Club, which apparently staged the tournament, we might have merged there; or Delaware Tennis Club, but both are apparently NN; and so is the tournament. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Having done extensive research on historical Delaware sports, I can say that the Field Club is almost certainly notable – maybe I could create the Field Club at some point soon and have this merged there, perhaps with the Delaware Field Club Open as well? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Peterkingiron - Single events can absolutely be notable and when they took place doesn't matter.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - not sure how it started but it looks to have sources now and is notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Possible merge or redirect to Southern Championships if it can be be established through reliable sources that it was the inaugaural holding of or forerunner to that tournament — it's stated as such in that article. However, the information in Southern Championships seems to conflict with the information provided here, which states it was a one-off tournament. Until this is resolved it's difficult to make a formal recommendation. Rupples (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've been working on a draft for the Field Club; perhaps it could be merged there when done? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge or Redirect. This discussion does need to be closed whether or not a Field Club article is in main space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. The one person who could help clarify the facts here is the creator of both this and the Southern Championships article Navops47 who I initially thought hadn't been formally notified of this AfD on their talk page and that was why they hadn't contributed here. About to query this, but a check of their Talk page history shows that notification was indeed made. Without confirmation of the position as to whether this tournament was one-off or the forerunner/inaugaural to the Southern Championships we run the risk of merging incorrect information. Rupples (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Non notable, one off event. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep It looks like there's enough sources to support an article. The fact it happened once is of no importance. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musa Herdem[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS/WP:ONEEVENT Nswix (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Nswix (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I have added more sources to the page, including links to pages for two films which featured the subject as the main subject of the film. I think this certainly counts as 'significant coverage'. Jwslubbock (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect into Siege of Kobanî, this is insignificant based on WP:ONEEVENT compared to the siege overall. Tirishan (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)) Reply[reply]

Keep His life is represented not just his role in the siege, I don’t see how anyone would want this to be deleted on a genuine merit, it’s history and people like to use Wikipedia to read about history Bobisland (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Tirishan. The BInsider reference [12] has some depth but insignificant based on WP:ONEEVENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunitaWorker (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Brief mention here [13]. Nothing else found. appears perhaps to be a memorial page, which wiki is not. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom WP:NOTNEWS andWP:ONEEVENT applies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS andWP:ONEEVENT. Maliner (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Living educational theory[edit]

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

As best I can tell, the article relies largely on a Ph.D. thesis (Barry, 2012) which was never published (see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Qualitative_Research_in_Education/FfnjXiMGvDsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=barry%202012&pg=PA145&printsec=frontcover). There also seems to be *a lot* of synthesis and/or original research. Finally, I think its notability is questionable; at the very least, I'm concerned that the article is overly focused on Barry's work instead of, say, Whitehead's. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. Also, created mostly by an WP:SPA, which doesn't really contribute to objectivity attempt. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OR Karnataka (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paramaecium. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Tompkins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources. He has not demonstrated individual notability outside of Paramaecium, therefore he shouldn't have his own Wikipedia page, per WP:BANDMEMBER. JMB1980 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Paramaecium. Per nominator, a quick Google and Wikipedia Library search suggests he doesn't have individual notability outside of Paramaecium. He does appear to have a few positive mentions in album reviews, but these currently are not cited in this article and could be added to the article on the band itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aldene Forbes[edit]

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

This footballer made two appearances for the Cayman Islands. I can find no significant coverage of this player in web searches or Cayman Islands news sources. There is a marriage announcement in the Cayman Compass but it is not nearly enough.

The subject of the article fails to meet GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, best source found was this image caption Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emergency Digital Information Service[edit]

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

Fails any indication of notability. UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I found three items on Google Books which give non-trivial amounts of information about it: [14] [15] [16]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, in light of the sources posted by Barnards. jp×g 05:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nocturnal Emissions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earthly Delights (record label)[edit]

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

NN record label. The only citation is for the unreliable Discogs. UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possible Delete. Lack of reliability pushes me towards delete, unless someone can find at least one reliable source from somewhere, should any exist. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another clear Merge since the label's founder has an article. These types of cases can be handled without further burdening AfD. Chubbles (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A plain merge is different than a merge/delete/redirect. Just merging would leave the history intact for any editor to restore, while a delete & redirect would prevent most users from doing that. And that action requires AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But why would we do that, in this case? Chubbles (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge - I second the merge into Nocturnal Emissions; don't care what mechanism is used, just that the content is maintained. -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saptagandaki Multiple Campus[edit]

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

NN school UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - per nom, was also draftified and moved back with no improvements. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 21:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julius Brewster Cotton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Mexico, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I took a stab but was unable to establish clear notability and forgot to come back to it. I'll have another look this week to see if anything has changed. Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you had the chance? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't turned up anything of note. If this closes as delete and I do down the road, I'll draftify it and flag for you and whoever closes before restoring. Star Mississippi 01:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage, at best. Not notable and I can't find any sourcing. Props for the "what can I do with this degree article" as sourcing though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shebeshxt[edit]

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

Does not appear notable as a musical performer, no charted singles, no awards. The article (and most sourcing found in BEFORE) is largely related to the legal problems the individual is facing. Likely WP:BLP1E Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to judge how well known he is. The only coverage I've found is news reports that he's facing criminal charges. There's pieces on social media and on websites but these don't appear to be reliable sources and what coverage there is lacks depth, so I don't think he passes WP:BIO or the WP:GNG. Doesn't satisfy the conditions of WP:CRIME as he's not been convicted. Nothing found on his musical career. Checked the South African official charts website https://theofficialsacharts.co.za and got zero results under both "Shebeshxt" and "Malome Shebe" so doubt he passes criterion 2 of WP:SINGER and nothing came up on Discogs search to support criterion 5. Rupples (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Found this: https://sundayworld.co.za/shwashwi/celebrity-news/shebeshxt-releases-new-single-from-behind-bars/ Rupples (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeletePer nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to British Columbia Highway 39. History is under the redirect if a consensus emerges to merge the sourced content Star Mississippi 13:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mackenzie Junction[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - no Google news hits, and as an intersection of two surface roads it is hard to imagine how it could be notable [17]. Rs chen 7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Rs chen 7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability, just an intersection Reywas92^Talk 03:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I believe this article is about a community named Mackenzie Junction, not the intersection, despite the way the article is written. This should probably be converted to a redirect to the article Regional District of Fraser–Fort George. Mind matrix 14:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which sources describe a community with this name? –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a road junction, this article is not notable. As a community - WP:GEOLAND says that populated places are presumed notable (not making a statement about whether this community fulfills that), but the article seems to be written about the road junction. Rs chen 7754 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I got 7 Google news hits. While the junction is nothing out of the ordinary, it's located in a sparsely populated area and appears to be used as a geographical marker for anything that happens in the area. Perhaps the junction falls within the realm of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer? An alternative could be a redirect to British Columbia Highway 39. Rupples (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into British Columbia Highway 39 for which this junction, tiny community, and service center is a terminal node. The target is short and can use this content. gidonb (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did consider a merge rather than a redirect but quality of sourcing stopped me formally recommending. I do think "Mackenzie Junction" is a plausible search term and therefore should be referenced somehow. If deemed appropriate a merge is the best alternative to deletion as notability looks insufficient to warrant a separate article. Rupples (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rupples, thank you for thinking this through. Actually, there is nothing wrong with the sources except that these do not support notability or importance. Hence we cannot keep the article. The content only needs sources that support data, a lower bar, which is met. The two sentences that should be copied to British Columbia Highway 39, while once inserting Mackenzie Junction, are the ones that start with it. Plus Mackenzie Junction should be added to infobox as the terminal node. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into British Columbia Highway 39 with "Mackenzie Junction" as a heading in that article and searches redirected there — following Gidonb's and my reasoning above. Rupples (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Intersection has no indication of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let’s attempt to come to a consensus on whether to merge or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment What part of Wikipedia's policy makes the number of Google News hits a criteria for inclusion or deletion? Also, the Google algorithm can be misleading in that stories in reliable secondary news sources stop showing up in Google news hits after a few days, but show up when the articles are first published.--Kerbyki (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom, not notable at all greyzxq ^talk 15:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or keep Possibly to Mackenzie? It's clear there exists a place called Mackenzie Junction - it comes up in a Google Books search, and there's an inn, a restaurant, and a RV hookup there in real life. Whether that's enough for a standalone article is a different question (even though that's the one posed by this discussion), but we should make sure the place is noted somewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinking about this more, it's the junction for the only road to Mackenzie - I think Mackenzie would be a good merge target for the small amount of information that's here, especially considering the Mackenzie visitor centre is by the junction. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be anything there to merit keeping as a community (based on looking at maps), and no evidence of notability as a junction (junctions are sometimes notable if historically significant or important, but not every road junction deserves an article). If the inn/restaurant was itself notable, we could move, but it doesn't seem to be. Redirecting to British Columbia Highway 39 might be possible if this is a genuinely widely-used name for the junction but I'm not sure of that. What happened there? Why is it notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it's widely referred to as a place in articles like this: [18] and in German guidebooks: [19] and here and a reference to real estate being located there - there's not much, but it's definitely a point on the map people refer to in a very rural part of the world. It's probably not going to be enough to keep this article unfortunately but I feel like that's a failure of WP:NGEO more than anything else. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete A minor intersection, does not meet the notability guidelines. Avilich (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete article. Merge the meager content to British Columbia Highway 39. Redirect to British Columbia Highway 39.

I looked on Google Earth. There is nothing there except one combined Petro-Canada gas station / RV park (tiny) / restaurant. There's a building out in back of that which may be housing for workers. There's a cluster of what looks like about a dozen mobile homes on the other side of the Parsnip River. That's everything within a one-mile radius.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Esteban Abada High School[edit]

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

NN school UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Philippines. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Did WP:BEFORE and was unable to find any sources that were not passing mentions or Facebook posts. I searched scholar and there are a couple mentions about how the school was the site of some earthquake improvements but nothing in de[th enough to establish notability. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete My searches could not find significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirecting to Division of City Schools – Manila could have been an alternative per WP:ATD but that also has no supporting cites. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Sampaloc, Manila#Education: as WP:ATD. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the delete voters @Dr vulpes:, @LibStar:, @Lenticel:, @33ABGirl: and @The person who loves reading:: is it okay with you guys to merge this on the target I mentioned? ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can find a cite for that section then I'm okay with the merge per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah that sounds fine, if there's anything you want me to do just ping me and I'll do my best to give you a hand. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing useful to merge. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Sampaloc, Manila#Education, do not delete or merge since there's nothing worth merging. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SBKSPP: Why redirect it to a page where it's not even mentioned? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. Less Unless (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hilary Beirne[edit]

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

While there are some mentions of them, not enough in-depth coverage of them to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Dear Onel5969, permit me to present an alternate vista upon this rich panorama of sources. The array of evidence available, I argue, draws a vivid portrait of our subject that fulfills, if not surpasses, the parameters of WP:SIGCOV.

Reflect, if you will, upon the sheer diversity of contexts in which our subject appears. From being the voice of authority as a parade administrator, to sharing personal insights in a magazine interview, his presence permeates a wide spectrum of discourse.

Furthermore, his inclusion in a political committee carries weight, especially when the announcement of such is is accompanied by a profile and direct quotes - an indication of his significance within the milieu

Similarly, the honoring by the Westchester County board of legislators and the Aisling Irish Community Centre of New York are not mere passing platitudes, but substantive statements describing a community's recognition of his achievements. Such accolades do not find their way to individuals of ordinary standing, but to those who have made substantial impact.

Consider, too, the quality of the sources. The Irish Times, a publication of undisputed credibility, deemed our subject's views valuable enough to include in a discussion of national import. This is not the mark of an individual of passing interest, but rather of one whose insights hold weight.

Esteemed colleague, upon a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the sources at hand, it is my conviction that they provide the 'significant coverage' required by our revered guidelines. The collective breadth, depth, and diversity of these sources underscore the subject's noteworthy influence and contributions in his sphere, thereby affirming his rightful place in the annals of Wikipedia. I propose that the evidence at hand is a testament to our subject's multifaceted significance.

His influence and the recognition he's earned, coupled with the breadth and depth of coverage across a range of reputable sources, come together to advocate strongly for his retention within our compendium. It is my belief that his journey and contributions warrant our attention, and that his tale should remain within Wikipedia's archives, for the edification of all who seek knowledge. Jack4576 (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. While Jack4576 has offered a lengthy opinion above, my own review of the sources (in the article and found elsewhere following a WP:BEFORE) indicate that much of the subject's notability relates primarily to his connection with the NYC parade/committee. Otherwise, apart from local/regional sources (like the Roscommon Herald and Sligo Champion pieces) most of the sources are either press releases, interviews, and opinion pieces written by the subject (and therefore not independent). Or are mentions by/about the subject in news pieces which are substantively about something else. A redirect (as an WP:ATD) seems reasonable in this sceanrio... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, not notable.

Hadal1337 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I don't think his contributions are particularly significant, but that's not what GNG measures. They have gained enough international publicity, in the form of in-depth stories about him in multiple reliably-published and independent newspapers and magazines in Ireland, to pass GNG. And some of them are about one thing and some another (his work with the parade, and with the treaty organization) so WP:BIO1E is not in play. The WP:VAGUEWAVE comments visible above do not convince (although neither does Jack's prolixity on the other side). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – per the well-argued Spiderone and David Eppstein above. The "Delete" votes do not argue why this fails WP:GNG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Leaning more towards a delete/merge per Guliolopez's argument. The case for WP:GNG seems weak.-KH-1 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge any relevant info to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. The sources don't indicate general notability outside of this context. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. At most this might warrant a mention at New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade, particularly if that article were to be fleshed out in more detail. – bradv 01:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Georgia Koskeridou[edit]

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

PROD by User:TimothyBlue which I endorsed as we are not a Soccerway mirror site. Recreated in what appears to be the exact same form, with no attempt to address the issues. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Appears to be a footballer playing at a very low level in the Greek women's football system with no claim to notability whatsoever. In Greek searches, I found only trivial coverage. Sport Drama is a copy of a press release from Amazones Dramas and is clearly not independent of Koskeridou. Xronika Dramas is probably the best source but it's nothing more than a quote from her, a squad listing and two passing mentions in the minute-by-minute match summary. Aelole (translated) mentions her once. Proinos Typos mentions her twice in passing. None of the above demonstrates the need for a stand-alone article, especially for a player with such an insignificant career. Should her career take an upward turn and if significant coverage is ever produced, then this can be recreated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - from looking at the user page of the creator, this is possible WP:AUTOBIO or WP:COI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable, as with GiantSnowman if sources are found please ping me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not a single source in Greek ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lsdxoxo[edit]

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

Not meeting MUSIC, no charted singles, nothing found in reliable sources; some coverage in DJ Mag, nothing I can find for extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll add more references then?? BiggestBidder (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're looking for extensive coverage of the person in reliable sources, not blogs or websites. If you can find some, please share with us. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are some good ones. If you want me to add these to the article, I will. Not sure what's wrong with the current sources though? There isn't even much information that would need many references.

https://www.documentjournal.com/2023/05/interview-at-the-feet-of-rj-glasgow-lsdxoxo-nightlifes-deity-of-dance/

https://djmag.com/cover-features/lsdxoxo-x-education

https://mixmag.net/feature/lsdxoxo-cover-interview-xl-pop-techno-berlin BiggestBidder (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are not so good. All three sources are interviews which is neither secondary nor independent of the subject. The nom already mentioned "some coverage in DJ Mag", but the second link and another on the article are interviews with the subject. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep the article now references a significant piece in DJ Mag, a full review in Pitchfork, a bio on AllMusic and other coverage that passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The piece in DJ Mag is an interview (primary information and not independent of the subject), which does not meet GNG. The Pitchfork source is a short review of an EP and says nothing of the subject himself. The bio on AllMusic is not significant coverage, not RS, and submitted by a "Paul Simpson", whoever that is. Other coverage is weaker in making a case for GNG than these which already fail. Aside from not passing GNG, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. It's a remarkably low threshold to say that on a superficial level one can assume without sounding preposterous that there's a case for notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Sources on the article are a mix of non-RS, primary sources, not independent of the subject especially interviews, not significant coverage, which do not help make a case for notability. Research done by the nominator, BiggestBidder, and I have turned up more of this. Take the McCollum piece in DJ Mag on the article, probably the best source available. It's an interview with the subject, which is primary information and not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, which is only a minimum bar presumption for notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AllMusic is an established reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. and has a byline written by Paul Simpson who is a staff writer at AllMusic. The Pitchfork review is four paragraphs long and the first paragraph is biographical information directly about him, and it is also independent criticism of his music which of course is relevant to him. The DJ Mag piece is significant coverage in a reliable source so there is enough to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I spoke to each one here.[20] Adding a little more.

The AllMusic source, in just 280 words, is puffery and discography in all but 50 words. Hardly prime biographic material.
The Pitchfork review on an EP has a whopping 2 sentences about him biographically, mentioning 3 cities he's lived in.
I'll repeat, the DJ Mag piece is not independent of the subject and is mostly primary sourcing, being an interview. It's as dependent on the subject as it could possibly get. WP:GNG does not accept this and neither does NMUSIC: "This criterion includes published works in all forms .. except for the following: .. publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"
GNG is not met. The nomination still stands. The subject appears to be a minor DJ with a smattering of low depth coverage. Worth reminding that GNG is not any guarantee to keep an article either. It's a bare minimum threshold to consider notability without sounding preposterous. Unfortunately, Lsdxoxo does not meet this low threshold. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I think the AllMusic bio and Pitchfork review provide significant coverage of this artist; I don't buy the argument that their focus on a musician's musical output disqualifies them as sources. Hatman31 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning to Keep as meets WP:MUSICBIO. Allmusic is a reliable source with a staff writer bio, and subject also has a short bio in Resident Advisor which is also an WP:EMRS. Seems notable enough to have done a cover mix for Mixmag - here. Mixmag also included his single 'Burn The Witch' as one of the 120 best tracks of the decade: [21]. ResonantDis_tortion 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also has a residency on a major national radio station BBC Residency and has done a substantial 2 hour broadcast on Pete Tongs Essential Mix - here. Further points which meet musicbio#12. Lsdxoxo is more than a 'minor DJ'. ResonantDis_tortion 16:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derrell Simpson[edit]

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

NN... author? UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Washington, D.C.. UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, PROMO, not meeting GNG. Name is rather common, turns up in various USA media, with no relation to this person. Seems to be a municipal employee, but I can't tell from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above, promotional only. Karnataka (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin Waud[edit]

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

This footballer played 2 games for the Cayman Islands in 2008. I don't see much coverage searching online and in Cayman Islands news sources. I can see some passing mentions in the Cayman Compass and one piece that provides a little more prose.

All told I don't believe the subject of the article meets GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jason Ebanks[edit]

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

This footballer played one game for the Cayman Islands in 2008. I can find no coverage of this player online or in Cayman Islands media.

It seems he does not meet GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abiyyu Fauzan Majid[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NBAD. Per BEFORE there is no SIGCOV article about Abiyyu Fauzan Majid. Stvbastian (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - good nomination. Appears to get only trivial coverage in the likes of Bola and Tribun News, despite winning a doubles title in Iran. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awn Hussain Al Khashlok[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources anywhere. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Iraq, and Greece. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not a single source in Greek. Totally unknown ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nelson Poket[edit]

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

NN musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dominican Republic. UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pavane for a Dead Girl[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One passing mention, one non-independent source, one review. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep; found quite a few sources when looking at websites listed at WP:ANIME/RS: Sequential Tart, Comicbook Bin, ICv2 (which is already in the article), and its review from ANN meets WP:100WORDS. Link20XX (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, per Link20XX, plus some coverage from Manga Bookshelf [22]; Kono Manga ga Sugoi! [23]; and Natalie [24][25][26][27] Xexerss (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per sources brought up by Link20XX and Xexerss. Fulmard (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Durhamtown Plantation[edit]

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

Tagged as an advert since 2012, and, apparently, now out of date. The only accessible source in the article is an archive of the resort's own website. My searches haven't found any significant coverage of the farm or the resort. John of Reading (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There's definitely some coverage, mostly about a "wrongful death" case against them that they lost. [28][29][30][31][32] -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 13:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete appears to have been transformed into a non-notable off-road park/track. Still a Delete. The wrongful death case isn't helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Appears that isn't notable. CastJared (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Council High School (Idaho)[edit]

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

sourced entirely to primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This school has been in existence for over 100 years. We generally keep public high schools (not policy, but that's what happens). Sources do not have to be in the article, they need to WP:NEXIST, and they don't have to be online. This is the second oldest school I've ever seen nominated. As to the article, it is at this point a pitiful stub, which needs great improvement, but why delete it instead of fixing it? Jacona (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- We can't presume notability due to age, notability comes from sources which must be shown to exist, improvement of an article requires sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Page 3 of the August 29, 1922 issue of the Idaho Statesman (based in Boise) has WP:SIGCOV about the expansion of the high school from a 3 year to a 4 year curriculum. That's the oldest WP:RS I've found thus far. I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901. — Jacona (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - One source is not WP:SIGCOV, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Trivial mentions do not count towards WP:GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Lavalizard101, First, this is not a trivial mention. Second, it's not the only source, but I've provided this one to show this school has existed and has significant coverage as far back as over a century ago. I don't really intend to waste a lot of effort to show that sources exists for a public high school in the U.S. that is so old, as experienced editors should know that sources are going to WP:NEXIST, both online and off. Just as a comment, before I nominate any articles for deletion, I always do a search on newspapers.com. There is a wealth of coverage. You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library — Jacona (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I'm not saying that that source is a trivial mention, my comment about trivial mentions is a response to your "I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901". Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Also WP:NEXIST also states "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        This is why Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com are important, as one can check some newspapers. One issue is that not all sources are online and some sources require visits to in-person centers for microfilms. This puts a very large burden on ordinary people trying to get sources for articles. We are lucky that the Idaho newspapers do have articles about the school online. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I just made a clipping of "May Enlarge Curriculum: Council High School Seeking to Teach All Four Classes" so Wikipedians can see the article for themselves and determine whether it meets SIGCOV. There should be a priority in ensuring articles on government-run comprehensive high schools have the necessary sources to meet SIGCOV, because Wikipedia does function as an almanac, and documenting public facilities such as schools are an important ingredient in being a good almanac. As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, any American school operated by a school district which doesnt meet notability should be folded into the respective school district article. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I checked Newspaperarchive.com and found coverage of the school fire and the subsequent efforts to build a new building from the Idaho Free Press of Nampa, Idaho. A school fire almost completely destroying the building is not routine coverage, and the articles delve into Wikipedia:SIGCOV WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Jacona's argument is compelling, and between the sources he and WhisperToMe have brought forward, GNG is clearly met. Aa a side note, the community it's located in had a local newspaper up until the early 90s. It hasn't been Archived anywhere online, but is available in both the local library and the Idaho state repository library at Boise State University. It's a fair assumption that there would be some highly detailed articles in it. And as the newspaper of record for the county, it should be considered a reliable source. There's a vast world of information beyond the internet. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Sources provided by Jacona and WhisperToMe easily meet requirements for non-profit schools under WP:ORG and WP:AUD: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The tip above about the local newspaper is also an appreciated reminder of life beyond the internet. Finally, notability requirements for public (non-profit) schools are WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and this article meets both. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Met WP:NSCHOOL and now WP:GNG. I commend users @Jacona and @WhisperToMe for adding sufficient sources proving WP:SIGCOV.

BurgeoningContracting 02:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Castleford High School[edit]

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

sourced entirely to primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I found references at newspapers.com that date the high school back to at least 1924. Jacona (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Then add those references. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources and evidence of WP:SIGCOV present. Passes wp:nschool

BurgeoningContracting 15:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG. Nominator should be reminded that AfD is not about the article, but rather about the subject of the article. Your comment was inappropriate. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I added a few sources, and there are more on newspapers.com, which I will add in the next few days. Meets WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Update -- I've clipped articles through 1975, excluding the quarterly/annual honor roll listings, reports of Future Farmers of America and of Future Homemakers of America, band performances, theater performances, Boys' State attendees from Castleford, dances, and commencements. In short, there were MANY articles I have not clipped about school activities. There were two article (so far) about bomb threats, and multiple articles about the school's dress code, involving girls' skirt length (too short) and boys' haircuts (too long), that in 1975 resulted in expulsion of nine males and multiple stories in local and statewide newspapers; all nine were readmitted with their too-long hair. I'll be adding what I have found so far to the article's talk page, for any editors who want to expand the article with content that could be an ode to small-town American life. I will try to return next week to newspapers.com for stories from the last half-century. Now for some corn on the cob and strawberry shortcake with my grandkids...
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Oxford Belles[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as the article now has some reviews and coverage in independent secondary sources, which help to satisfy WP:BAND, including the 2001 review in The Scotsman and the 2010 review in ScotsGay Magazine at the Edinburgh Fringe, plus the 2018 article in Mashable. That said, more work could be done to improve the article, including adding more secondary sources about the organisation, and replacing the deadlinks. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as there's enough turning up on a news search [33] to pass WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cole Valley Christian High School[edit]

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

sourced entirely to primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This article from the Idaho Statesman appears to be enough on its own to satisfy GNG. Additionally, the athletic achievements detailed in the article, along with the achievements this small school has achieved in music not in the article would indicate more sources are available. Please understand that notability guidelines are not proscriptive (telling us what we can't do); but rather descriptive (telling us what we usually do). Most US schools have sufficient sources somewhere; high achieving schools even moreso. And if it's a toss up, we keep. Although notability is admittedly weak for this school, IMO it's sufficient to keep. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep due to the "Cole Valley Christian to double enrollment with new ‘state-of-the-art’ Meridian campus" article and sections of the "As educational choices grow, Valley religious schools fight to attract families " article. I will check Newspapers.com for other articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I added a few historical details supported by newspapers.com sources, and as a non-profit, the school meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep there is enough coverage identified in this discussion and referenced in the article for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is sufficient sourcing in the article to meet WP:GNG, so we should Keep this article. Jacona (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the above. St Anselm (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orange Moldova[edit]

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

No indication this passes WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and Moldova. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mosaad Megahed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1) This was created by a blocked user. 2) There are concerns about paid edits. 3) I've gone through WP:PROF and I don't think the subject is notable. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Egypt, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment appears to be a working dermatologist, I can't comment on the citation or impact factors. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete under G5. CastJared (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete sources insufficient, mostly papers written by the person. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per above.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Indian Institute of Science[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a good reason why this school should be considered notable. Fwiw there appear to be many schools affiliated to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan which have WP pages but with questionable notability JMWt (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. If any schools in India are not notable, it will be deleted because, it can't pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. CastJared (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The school doesn't meet the notability requirements stated on WP:NSCHOOL Ertrinken (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lynn, Ohio[edit]

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

A Teahouse visitor has asserted, with coherent argument, that this place was never inhabited, and is merely a railway siding. I will copy their text as comments. Elemimele (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The teahouse-guest, ClevelandExPat asked for correction of this article, initially posting the following text:

"I have found an article that is very inaccurate in that it has turned a former mail stop along the old Pennsylvania Railroad tracks in Ohio into an "unincorporated community," which it never was. (No streets, no buildings other than an exterior platform and at most a mail distribution point - before Rural Free Delivery started in 1905. This place had no school, no churches, no grange or hall of any sort. Its simply a grade crossing created by a railroad. Portraying this as "community" is causing problems on other sites that insist that place was more than it was and as an unincorporated community that there were members of said "unincorporated community," when there were none. I just want the correct information to stand and remove this fictitious portrayal of what was a mail stop and perhaps a small post office that only functioned from 1895-1905 as an "unincorporated community" The factual information is already assembled, what remains is what to do with the "box" used for places. I just want this to be accurate, without deepening involvement. Is it possible to make this happen?"

They subsequently added:

"Thank you for the reply. USGS has a point on a map. And evidently, McGraw Hill maps do as well. However, Lynn, the railroad siding, was never occupied. Even as a postal sub-office, it existed as "Benzler" or "Lynn" had no residents, no place for people to gather. As for the defunct, yes, as of 1905 when its reason for being was closed with the advent of RFD routes. So it should be labeled as defunct in that its purpose for being ended 118 years ago. And it should be labeled as such, because there is nothing there. As for why people continue to list it on maps, it's probably "We have always done it that way," and the decision is being made by people who have never been there. If you look it up on Google maps, you'll see that there is just a crossing, nothing else. "

Based on these arguments, it's not clear that this is genuinely a notable place. I am not an expert on US inhabited locations, and am therefore bringing it here, for the attention of those who are. Elemimele (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I edited the article to say "...is a former post office and railroad siding ..." The article already had two references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - "Unincorporated community" was sourced only to GNIS which is unreliable for that claim; the train station and post office do not indicate the presence of a community nor do they meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Post offices from that era do not necessarily correspond to communities; often they were just run out of a home or store and named after the owner. Better sourcing would be needed to establish as a notable place or community. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND. There is no automatic notability for ex-post offices and railroad sidings, only for legally recognised communities, which this wasn't. The passing mentions cited clearly aren't enough to meet the WP:GNG. Hut 8.5 18:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something not delete Are we sure the information is correct? I've found [34] which shows someone was the pastor of a church in Lynn, Ohio earlier in the 19th century and [35] talks about electors from Lynn, and also mentioned here: [36] - I don't know where that comes from, but are we absolutely sure about this one? Even if we are, the information here should be merged elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also [37] and [38] which shows the post office pre-dates what we currently have in the article, and [39] this from 1911. Though this could very well be referring to some other place in Ohio? Something's odd about this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The electors are from Lynn Township, presumable Lynn Township, Hardin County, Ohio. –dlthewave ☎ 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND. Avilich (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I entered the coordinates in Google Earth. All that's there is a one-track railroad crossing over county road 123 (not even a state road). There's no sign of a station or a siding. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I could find no reliable sources to establish notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus here is that there is not sufficient reference material to demonstrate notability. If anyone would like to work on this article as a draft, let me know and I will put it in draft space for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bryan Battle[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails GNG as fight announcements and fight results sources are merely routine reports Subject also fails WP:NMMA for not ranked top ten in the world. As present he ranked 131 in welterweight. Cassiopeia talk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and South Carolina. Cassiopeia talk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Subject won The Ultimate Fighter 29 and after research I can say subject meets WP:GNG with significant independent coverage from multiple sources such as MMA Junkie, MMA Fighting, MMA Mania, Yahoo!, Sportskeeda, B.J. Penn, North State Journal, The Charlotte Observer and WCNC-TV. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: to win TUF 29 is not a qualify for GNG nor NMMA. And not sources url are given. Note: Yahoo is not a source where we need to have original independent, reliable source and Sportkeeda is not are reliable sources and some of the articles in the site are written by fans - see "SportsKeeda.com is owned by the fans. Yes, you read it right; We have placed the control of the website right in hands of the fans. As a fan,, you are invited to write an article, comment on articles and even do interviews wiht sporting celebrities. You cannot only just create your own content; you can easily shere it via social media such as Facebook, Orkut and Twitter. Today, we live in the digital age and there is no digital sport site in India which has handed over control to the user" - see source here.
Cassiopeia I know TUF does not constitute notability, GNG is number 1. I just mentioned it because fans want to read about subject because of this accomplishement and it's the reason why he gets so much coverage. I listed 9 sources, even if you remove Yahoo and Sportskeeda, subject has plenty of significant independent coverage. Subject definitely meets WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KeepPer Lethwimaster also fighter have 3 or more bouts in UFC also with his recent win he is more then enough notable.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commment, 3 or more bout in UFC does not meet NMMA or GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't change my vote. Period. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not close to meeting WP:NMMA. Fight announcements, fight results, and MMA databases are not enough to meet WP:GNG. The number of UFC fights is not an indicator of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:MMA is not needed if subject meets GNG. Subject meets GNG with significant in dept coverage from different sources. WCNC-TV [40], The Charlotte Observer [41], MMA Junkie [42]. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first source is a local news article about him winning the Ultimate Fighter, the second is a local news report on a victory, and the third is an interview. Fight results and interviews do not generally constitute significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON Nswix (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - It seems a thoroughly comprehensive and well-researched article. Wafflesvarog (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As this is your first AfD, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP policies such as WP:N. Editors often disagree, and even change their minds, so I would be interested in hearing your specific reasons for saying this subject is WP notable. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify Also think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON HeinzMaster (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify seems ok. Does seem like TOOSOON, likely in another year they'll hit it big. NO pun intended. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Keep~~ Meets WP:GNP fighter is enough notable espically with his latest win also additional source has been added.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)(striking duplicate vote)Reply[reply]

Please strike one of your !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, per Papaursa. If he's notable in the future this can be undeleted or a new article can be created, but as it stands now he fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Pelusium (343 BC)[edit]

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

I'm bringing this here and not to RfD because articles that have been boldly redirected seem to be rejected procedurally there.

There was no "battle of Pelusium" in 343 BC. The creator copied without attribution information on second Persian conquest of Egypt from Artaxerxes III#Second Egyptian Campaign (old diff from 2015), and apparently invented the title as an analogy to the battle of Pelusium of 525 BC (the first Persian conquest of Egypt). Since the name is wrong and the content is already in the edit history of the original page, and the second conquest is already covered at second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt, I don't see how a merge or redirect would be useful. The creator was blocked for copyvio and hoaxing, and of all his creations this is one of few which haven't been speedied yet. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sentence added Avilich (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Iran, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. What you say seems reasonable, and full deletion is better to resolve, but I notice that the confusion might be more widespread then even in Wikipedia per this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, who use the title "battles of Pelusium". Aszx5000 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting, but only one of the entries, the one of 525, actually has "battle of Pelusium" verbatim; the 343 one merely speaks of a defeat. According to the sources I checked, Pelusium was simply one of several fortresses (the most important, and I assume that's why the Britannica has telescoped the entire conquest to that location) that surrendered during the conquest, with no actual pitched battle fought near it. Avilich (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It is more often called the siege of Pelusium. A bad title is no reason to delete. Nor is there any reason the material belongs more to Artaxerxes III than Nectanebo II. The battle is covered in extenso in chapter 18 of Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BC. The primary source is Diodorus. His dating, however, is wrong. This is noted in P. J. Rhodes, A History of the Classical Greek World, 478–323 BC. Srnec (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is WP:CONTENTFORK, an especially malformed one. If you wish to propose a split, do so on the talk page, not the AfD. That has nothing to do with the appropriateness of this article in particular. Avilich (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saved you the trouble and created second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt. I don't have Ruzicka's book, but the others I looked at have very little on the siege of Pelusium (only the extended conquest), so that doesn't seem to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Per nominator, the article seems to largely be the product of confusion. Ifly6 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and Ifly6. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hashmat Kevalramani[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Was returned to mainspace without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete~~ I looked for sources to support this when it was first created and found nothing. If anyone else can find anything to support this I’m prepared to reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mccapra Coverage is offline (most of it) and is in Sindhi language. We need help of someone who understands Sindhi. That being said, there are two in-depth articles just about him cited already and one of them is an in-depth entry in Encyclopedia Sindhiana. You should reconsider your vote. BookishReader (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but rename to Hashoo Kewalramani. Some additional coverage is given below:
- The Wire India has described him as "the founder of the modern nationalist ideology of Sindh" ([43])
- Per this, there is a school named after him called "Hashoo Kewalramani School of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences"?
- This article says "Ayaz was deeply impressed by leftist intellectual Hashoo Kewalramani".
- This magazine article notes "Under the able leadership of Hashoo Kewalramani, 'Sindhi Samaj' Delhi also worked hard in this respect. Various Sindhi sammelans were held after 1951."
- What about this complete book on this dissident by Madad Ali Sindhi.

I think the coverage is more than enough and would like to kindly ask @Onel5969: to please withdraw this nomination. Thank you. BookishReader (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found one more in-depth article in a Sindhi newspaper and there are more if one searches well. BookishReader (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book is certainly significant and the new newspaper source is also good. The other refs you posted above are passing mentions and don’t help demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rest assured, I only create an article if it is really notable. Even though I'm not Sindhi, I managed to locate another in-depth book for you that covers his biography:

[44], pp. 53-54 and onwards on archive.org. BookishReader (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This magazine article notes: "The pioneering role was played by Hashu Kewalramani, a journalist trained at the United Kingdom (UK). Hashu remained in the UK for seven years and was a close associate in India League of Krishna Menon, a Leftist, who later became a right-hand man of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Hashu returned to Karachi in 1936-37. He organised the students and brought them under the banner of the All India Students Federation with himself as the President and Kishin Motwani and Abhichandani as its General Secretaries. Very soon the organi-sation became a powerful movement and spread to all the towns of Sindh. At Karachi an office was set up to solve the problems of the students and to discuss the political issues. Pritam Tahiliani, Santosh Kumar Dharmani, Rocho Pardasani, Sarla Ahuja, Moti Motwani, Radhakrishnan Wadhwani, Sukhram Virwani, Rijhu Abichandani, Rochi Pardasani, and Hashu’s own younger brother were active members of the AISF." and "they arrested a large number of students including Hashu Kewalramani, President of the AISF, Pritam Tahilramani and Santosh Kumar Dharmani. Hashu Kewalramani was prosecuted and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment." BookishReader (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve struck my delete vote as there’s apparently enough in Sindhi to take that off the table, but since I can’t read Sindhi I can’t really vote to keep. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented by BookishReader.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per BookishReader.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. In hindsight, it was inadvisable to bundle the nominations of these pages together into a single AfD. The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. No prejudice against creating AfDs for individual articles, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Iranian dynasties and countries[edit]

I am nominating the following pages:

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

(related simultaneous CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Berber dynasties, also involving Category:Iranian Muslim dynasties, Category:Kurdish dynasties, Category:Former Kurdish states, and the latter's 4 subcategories.)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, fail WP:LISTCRITERIA (the lists equivalent of WP:NONDEFINING), and long series of precedents confirming that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. Many users at the "Turkic" AfD urged me to nominate the "Iranian" list and similar lists as well, so here they are. Additional suggestions are welcome if I have missed anything. I'll file the categories separately because it is a different procedure with different criteria, but the fundamental issues are the same, and I'm mentioning it for everyone's information. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Maintaining such content on Wikipedia under overarching categories like 'Germanic dynasties and countries' can inadvertently fuel ethnic nationalism, leading to prolonged debates and contentious issues between Iranian Wikipedia users and users from other communities. What we need to understand is that these peoples and states were not brothers but rather distant cousins, many of them were unaware of their connections during their respective reigns. Instead of allowing Wikipedia to become a battleground for historical disputes and ethnic nationalism, our focus should be on fostering an environment of mutual respect. In line with recent deletions, it appears that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been removed. It seems that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been deleted. Deleting such things might create a more peaceful atmosphere.
Akatziri (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For somewhat related reasons, I have also successfully nominated Category:Germanic empires, Category:Germanic rulers etc. for deletion a few months ago. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update I have submitted the related simultaneous CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Berber dynasties, also involving Category:Iranian Muslim dynasties, Category:Kurdish dynasties, Category:Former Kurdish states, and the latter's 4 subcategories. This is a separate procedure, your comments and votes here don't "count" for the categories, so please (also) participate in the CfD discussion if you have an opinion on what should happen to the categories. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I see the problem here - List of Kurdish dynasties and countries is well sourced, for instance, as is List of Pashtun empires and dynasties. I don't understand the LISTCRITERIA argument either as some of these lists have very clear criteria, and the WP:OR argument requires that no sources have discussed these articles. I'm not a topic expert, but's not clear to me why the WP:OR has been levied for some of these articles. I can understand the Iranian one a little bit, but it still seems like it could be a potentially valid list under WP:LISTN. So there's something here I'm clearly not understanding about these nominations apart from the fact the Iranian article could be cleaned up. SportingFlyer T·C 10:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, what was "Pashtun" about Hamidullah Khan (r. 1926-1949), for example? His entire article doesn't mention it. He was an "Indian Muslim", and it seems like English and/or Hindustani were his native/professional languages. So why should we consider him part of a "Pashtun dynasty"?

According to the scope of List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, states, princely states, empires and dynasties in the regions of Central, Western and South Asia which were founded by rulers of Pashtun ancestry are automatically "Pashtun" in their entirety. In the case of Bhopal State, some Pashtun soldier named Dost Mohammad of Bhopal became a warlord and founded Bhopal State in 1707. This is an ancestor of Hamidullah Khan, whose family over the course of 200 years became significantly Indianised. Although he was still a Muslim, there is not a trace of "Pashtun" heritage. WP:COP-HERITAGE also says The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. Identifying every descendant of A as "Pashtun", no matter how many generations, just because A was a Pashtun, is quite a stretch and WP:NONDEFINING/WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hamidullah Khan also isn't listed in the List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, either, but "Pashtun dynasty" brings up a decent number of hits in scholarly sources, so there are definitely dynasties that are defined by being Pashtun. Whether that includes the entire dynasty or not isn't really a notability issue, but a content issue for the talk page, and certainly isn't an argument for deleting the entire page.

I would suggest nominating each of these individually over time so we can have a discussion about them, as these articles are not closely related enough to delete them as a group. One may be WP:SYNTH but I see some decently sourced, potentially valid articles here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you're right. I've already made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses a separate AfD (see "Update" below). The Pashtun list turns out to be a bit more complicated than I expected, and cannot lean on the language family argument because Pashto is a single language. There is disagreement about whether there is 1 or multiple Kurdish language(s). A similar problem exists with the Mongol states, which were Turkicised over time, but many probably began with the same common language of Middle Mongol. I assumed that "Maratha" referred to language family, but it can mean Maratha (caste) and Marathi language. I guess I've been (uncharacteristically, hopefully) careless with this AfD. Perhaps I should withdraw this bundled nomination and start over, only nominating List of Iranian dynasties and countries again for now... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep for Kurdish emirates. Plug the term into Google Scholar to see why. Srnec (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Middle East, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep Actually, I'd suggest close this car crash of an AfD as the lists cited are so wide and disparate, you're never going to get agreement on deleting the whole lot in one fell swoop. The list of Arabian Houses is not my favourite thing, but I see no reason for its deletion and certainly fail to see how discussing its deletion in among this whole other bunch of nominations is constructive. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update Alexandermcnabb has made a good point about List of Arabian Houses not really fitting this AfD bundle (I was already in doubts about that, to be honest), so I made it a separate AfD, to be assessed on its own terms: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw (as nom) I've been a bit careless in bundling these pages together in a single nomination (more details in my reply to SportingFlyer). I'm glad people pointed this out. I'll withdraw this bundle and start over by nominating the pages separately after more thorough preparation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses is still on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw, as there is an editor advocating Delete, this AFD can't be closed as Keep even with your withdrawal of the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh so as soon as anyone has !voted for any particular outcome, withdrawal is no longer possible? I didn't know that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, but it should be worked upon to add more reliable citations. Noorullah (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete List of Iranian dynasties and countries in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries and weak keep the rest. Aintabli (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The Turkic one had an issue of being very little defined and as well as disputed. Pages like List of Pashtun empires and dynasties are very clear especially in the pages description that said dynasties were Pashtun in origin. @Aintabli See the point above in the discussion between SportingFlyer and Nederlandse Leeuw. Noorullah (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Noorullah21 I have revised my vote. Aintabli (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Kurdish emirates, Neutral on List of Mongol states, and Delete the rest per the previous AfD. I think the Kurdish emirate one is fine for notability as it was a unique and linear circumstance that has received scholarly attention, while the Mongol states one is different enough than the others to warrant a separate discussion. Curbon7 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keepfor the Kurdish dynasties which is apparently well sourced and as to my knowledge had the collaboration of some well respected editors. The Kurdish emirates I'd keep as well, not all of them have their own articles. On the rest I have no opinion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the closer of the discussion: The delete and keep votes are often not meant for all articles. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. It seems that some of the nominees will get enough votes for a keep, while others will get enough votes for a delete. This is gonna be a complicated tally. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete For the list of Iranian dynasties and countries. As for the rest, please start individual AfDs. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Lists. Keep and expand/improve Kurdish emirates. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lars Moe[edit]

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

He was for some years rector of a local university, but this doesn't validate WP:BIO OR WP:PROF per se. Not enough academic achievements, since he is not in any list with highly cited researchers or with any highly impact publication. Chiserc (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway. Chiserc (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There seems to be coverage in Norwegian media. This [45] appears to be in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there is some coverage. I have found some sources based on WP:BEFORE: Vettimes, E24, and the one source you mentioned. However, I don't think this coverage is enough for notability. Chiserc (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in the strength of https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lars-Moe/publication/11571627_Population-based_incidence_of_mammary_tumours_in_some_dog_breeds/links/62383edabe72d414dad174ca/Population-based-incidence-of-mammary-tumours-in-some-dog-breeds.pdf (Google Scholar says cited by 278) and his other work (in some cases, he is not the primary author) and as a university president (which I think rector is a synonym for). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are academic publications that had some impact, I agree with that, but there should be always a caution with Google Scholar, as mentioned in the citation metrics. I have seen his Scopus profile Lars Moe and his h-index is 22. I don't have access on his Web of Science profile to double-check it, but I don't think his impact is quite convincing to establish WP:PROF. Chiserc (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep based on the comments above, regarding his impact factor. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparison of the Baltic states[edit]

I am nominating the following 3 articles:

Comparison of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comparison of the Benelux countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comparison of the Nordic countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Partial follow-up to the deletion of Comparison of the Turkic states at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Unlike the "Turkic" page, these 3 articles are not arbitrary WP:CROSSCATs between language family and countries, and the terms "Baltic states", "Benelux" and "Nordic countries" are well-established. Other than that, however, they show the same issues, with arbitrarily chosen, SYNTHed data, of which the overall added encyclopedic value is not clear at all. A reader could also just open three tabs or windows in their browser putting the infoboxes of three countries next to each other; we don't need to do that for them. Nor do we have to assume it is more relevant or interesting for the reader to compare the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg than, say, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark; nor that Finland is more interesting as part of the Nordic countries and Estonia as part of the "Baltic" states, when Finland and Estonia arguably have more in common with each other than the other states they are usually associated with. (With the emphasis on arguably, because it is all quite subjective. It's not an opinion I necessarily share, but I've frequently heard and seen it expressed, with the argument that Estonian is not a Baltic language, but closely related to Finnish, which is true, but the significance of that is unclear). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is pure WP:SYNTH --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if we were to assume that the information there has some encyclopedic value, all could be summarized on Benelux, Nordic countries, or Baltic states. Aintabli (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I was expecting a bit more to these, but no, it really is just a few parameters of the infoboxes collated together. Not necessary articles, also easily summarized elsewhere per Aintabli. Reywas92^Talk 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, random trivia that if relevant, can be presented with secondary sources at the more general pages mentioned. CMD (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete purely or. (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, per WP:SYNTH. /Julle (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete these states have barely anything to do with each other. It’s like making a comparison of anglophone states or Romance states because ay they all speak roughly the same, were part of a large former empire and eat similar weird foods right? Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All three articles are about sets of countries who have a lot to do with each other. That's not something these articles make up. The Baltic states, Benelux and the Nordic countries are well-established units. /Julle (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha well it's more than just that. You do see these countries generally cooperating more closely with each other in political, socio-economic, cultural, environmental etc. affairs than with other European countries around them. But I don't think that is significant enough to be creating and hosting this still rather randomly generated "comparison" articles. That's fun stuff for a blog or tabloid as a page-filler, but everyone here seems to agree it's quite redundant and arbitrary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Yeah what Julle says. Funnily enough, he's from Sweden and I'm from the Netherlands, we both recognise these sets of countries as well-established units, but we also both agree these 'comparison' articles should be deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could say anglophone countries cooperate more than other regional states, since most of them are in the Commonwealth of Nations and the US is close allies with both the UK and Canada. But I don’t think there’s a huge amount to “compare” between, I dunno, South Africa and New Zealand. Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dronebogus Now that you mention it, shouldn't we also delete the section Anglosphere#Comparing core Anglosphere, and the table in Anglosphere#Core Anglosphere? Because that's EXACTLY what they are doing. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it’s just as arbitrary Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dronebogus Cool, thanks for helping me find them! I'll remove both tables if this nom results is the overwhelming Delete that is looming. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Arabian cities by population should probably be nominated next, because all data are WP:SYNTHed, and there is no agreed definition of "Arabia" or "Arabian Peninsula" (as I found out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses); e.g. some definitions exclude Iraq, but this list mentions Basra. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Middle Eastern countries by population uses an arbitrary definition of Middle East: 16 'countries (or dependent territories)' including State of Palestine but excluding Cyprus.
Demographics of the Middle East uses another arbitrary definition of Middle East (based on WP:BRITANNICA): 17 'states or territories' State of Palestine and Cyprus.
Middle East#Countries and territory uses another arbitrary definition of Middle East: 18 'countries and territory' including State of Palestine, Cyprus, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia.
The infobox of Middle East uses another arbitrary definition of Middle East: 16 'UN member states', 1 'UN observer' (State of Palestine), 1 "De facto" (Northern Cyprus), and 9 "Dependencies".
List of largest metropolitan areas of the Middle East does not use a definition of Middle East at all (although any of the doubtful cases of Palestine, Cyprus, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia probably do not contain metropolitan areas that have a population of over 1.5 million), but the whole article is WP:SYNTH by the admission of the opening sentence itself: population according to different sources. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Economy of the Middle East#Overview uses an arbitrary definition of Middle East: 16 'countries' including Palestinian territories but excluding Cyprus.
Middle East economic integration#Regional characteristics of MENA equates Middle East with MENA.
Cousin marriage in the Middle East feels confident in including "Cousin marriage in the Middle East#Other areas" (Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan) outside the article's scope. According to the first sentence, apparently we can lump in other Muslim countries worldwide such as Pakistan, as if all countries in the Middle East are "Muslim" [sic], even though there is also a Cousin marriage in the Middle East#Jews subsection. The second sentence equates it with the Arab world, as if all countries in the Middle East are "Arab" [sic]. The third sentence adds Arab or Islamic world, Arab countries, yet more WP:SYNTH.
Genetic history of the Middle East doesn't really define its geographical scope apart from Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Arabia, the Levant, and other areas, but apparently this does include Cyprus, Israel and Palestine.
Mental health in the Middle East makes no attempt to define its geographical scope.

Only the first of these would probably neatly fall within the scope of a follow-up AfD. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arab world#Arab League states is possibly legitimate, but should be moved to Member states of the Arab League, possibly integrated with Member states of the Arab League#List of current member states.
Demographics of the Arab world#Population growth table: same story.
Demographics of the Arab world#Arab world populations: same story.
Demographics of the Arab world#Comparison of the members: same story.
Muslim world#Muslim-minority states is full of WP:SYNTH.
Demographics of the Middle East and North Africa does not actually define its geographical scope. It just says Debates on which countries should be included in the Middle East are wide-ranging. The Greater Middle East and North Africa region can include the Caucasus, Cyprus, Afghanistan, and several sub-Saharan African states due to various social, religious and historic ties. The most commonly accepted countries in the MENA region are included on this page. before randomly picking some countries in its subsections:
- Demographics of the Middle East and North Africa#Population by country includes "Gaza" and "West Bank" separately, plus "South Sudan".
- Demographics of the Middle East and North Africa#Population shifts same but without "South Sudan".

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arab–Pakistan relations#Comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Sino-Arab relations#Comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Arab League–European Union relations#Organization comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Arab League–Iran relations#Comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Arab League–Russia relations the whole article is another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Lists of the Arab League more random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dumps, although at least with a non-arbitrary scope.
Economy of the Arab League#List possible merge target for many of the lists/tables above.
List of Arab League countries by GDP (nominal) possible merge target for many of the lists/tables above.
List of banks in the Arab world arbitrary set of 19 countries representing the "Arab world". Rescoping to "Arab League" probably best solution.
List of Arabs by net worth arbitrary set of 22 rich people based on their citizenship, including 4 people who also have French citizenship. It's WP:ONESOURCE, and has nothing to do with the Arab Leage as an intergovernmental organisation.
List of Arab entrepreneurship initiatives similar issues.
Foreign relations of the Arab League is a mostly WP:UNSOURCED WP:COATRACK.
Arab–American relations is a mostly WP:UNSOURCED WP:COATRACK to talk about U.S. foreign military policy in the Middle East, and has very little to do with the Arab League as an intergovernmental organisation.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australia–Canada relations#Country comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Canada–United Kingdom relations#Country comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
China–Russia relations#Country comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
China–United States relations#Country comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Germany–Japan relations#Country comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Iran–Israel relations#Country comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Poland–Ukraine relations#Comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Russia–United States relations#Country comparison another random partly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Russia–Ukraine relations#Country comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Spain–United Kingdom relations#Country comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Switzerland–European Union relations#Comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Turkey–United States relations#Country comparison another random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.

Common source for all / most of these cruft sections: User:128.117.10.25, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6#Country comparison sections. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Austria–Germany relations#Country comparison another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Soviet Union–United States relations#Country comparison another random partly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Many country comparison sections have already been removed by User:Drmies on 6 October 2020. Example:
removed from Azerbaijan–Pakistan relations on 6 October 2020: rm trivia
removed from Russia–United Kingdom relations on 20 October 2020: not relevant to the article as agreed (removed by someone else)
Background discussions include: Talk:Singapore–United States relations#October 2020, User talk:Zeex.rice#"Country comparison" in international relations articles

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In many instances these tables are an affront to "summary style", and the duplication of basic country statistics to such articles virtually guarantee they'll be out of date. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. If they mention dates at all, the basic country statistics will be outdated eventually. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. Most of WP content is going to be outdated. This is a reason for updating pages (and yes, providing dates and references), not deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infoboxes are regularly updated, demographics articles are regularly updated, but those comparison articles/sections? Why bother? Unless we're making some sort of Template:Excerpt construction, so that the contents of comparison tables will always synchronised and up to date, I really don't think it's worth the trouble. And even if we do, we are admitting we are duplicating contents anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All these pages are legitimate Wikipedia:Lists supplementing main pages on the corresponding subjects. Something can be unsourced on a lot of pages, but this is not a reason to automatically delete them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying all articles I'm mentioning here should necessarily be deleted. I'm just identifying lots of similar issues across articles, and especially the country comparison sections should probably just be removed from the international relations articles that should otherwise be kept intact. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I think the arguments to delete these pages and remove such content from all main pages are strange. Consider something like page Proteases. Providing a table with comparison of different proteases on such page would be great. Same is here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found out this morning that an RfC about removing them altogether had been initiated on 11 June (before, and apparently completely independent of, my AfD here): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It turns out that this saga already started in 2018, and we've still not established a consensus about what to do with such country comparison sections across English Wikipedia. For my part, I've made a passionate argument to get rid of them once and for all, based on an elaborate documentation of precedents and background discussions that I had mostly already gathered here. Never knew it could instantly be reused for an RfC about the same topic! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing wrong with making such comparisons, but they should be made in proper sections and placed to certain context like Nordic_countries#Geography. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete OR/SYNTH. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or merge. Since we have pages Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states, these "comparison" pages are legitimate WP:list additions to these main pages. They are not WP:SYN any more than any other list page. These list pages could be "merged" to their main parent pages we have~~, but they are better readable as standalone lists. That's why we have list pages.~~ My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, it would be better to make these pages "redirect" to corresponding main pages, i.e. Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states, rather than outright delete. That would allow merging their content to the corresponding main pages if anyone wants. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of note, some comparison info is already provided on pages Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states. What exactly needs to be compared is of course debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables suggests that the fact that What exactly needs to be compared is of course debatable is exactly the problem. It's all random, arguable, contestable, debatable, and arbitrary. Legitimate comparisons can of course be made, like Comparison of American and British English. But for countries / international relations, I see a consensus emerging at the RfC that they have no discernable added encyclopedic value, and should be deleted / removed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as unjustified and inherently unjustifiable WP:SPINOFFs. Our articles present, analyze and contrast, without rubbing in what FUNCTIONS sentences and sections fulfill so not to insult the intelligence of the reader. As articles develop, headers may be added based on subject matter, better identifying subjects within (paragraphs also need to be written around ideas) and, eventually, spinoffs or spinouts may be justified. Everything along delimitations of content and NOT by functions! These articles, however, are written around functionality (yikes!). Much more went wrong. These are NOT lists so they must be judged by the prose. However, the prose is almost entirely to entirely (for the Benelux) missing in action. So there is no there there. There is WP:OR in two articles, where parts of North America are included into regions in Europe. Finally there is a misnomer of geography. This is an all-WP problem and well-beyond. The Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states ARE geographies so identifying only some physical characteristics as "geography" spits in the face of human geography. On the bright side, I did not identify SYNTH. No objection to copying some of these tables to the main articles, into the appropriate sections. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete theoretically, some version of these articles might be salvageable. What we have are a few arbitrary data tables, all of which would be better presented in some other format. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. So Latvia has more water than Lithuania, what is the significance of that? Or that the 3 countries have different international calling codes. The most relevant information can be included in Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states, but "comparison" articles are not necessary. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if Lithuania ever finds itself faced with a water shortage, it can borrow some from Latvia! This is why international relations between these two countries are very, very important.^[Joke] Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Some participants incorrectly assume these pages are not WP:Lists because they are formatted as tables. This is not the case. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists (Sortable lists, which are formatted as tables, such as List of social networking services.) My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lists can be in table form and can even be broken up by headers, such as here, but it does not apply to these articles. These articles are NOT lists but, rather, proseless prose or plainly travesties. I ENCOURAGE everyone to follow the link you supplied and the one I supplied to understand what a sortable or tabled list looks like. It's easy to see how these are different from the AfDd articles! gidonb (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree, these are not good as standalone pages. Some info is useful, but it is either already included to other pages or should be included differently. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely. I explained above in some detail why comparisons should not be spinoffs. It accumulates information by function, instead of subject matter topic which is the correct way to spin off. There are more issues with these articles, also listed in my opinion above. gidonb (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The discussion has ground to a halt after several relists, but essentially more people think there are not enough sources to be able to sustain a standalone article. As this is a biography of a living person, policy behooves us to err on the side of not including things. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minimi (Rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer, all links used are to social media, nothing found outside of these either. Not meeting GNG or MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I disagree with you. He is quite popular in Northeast India and has performed in many shows across Assam and the Northeast region. He has worked with popular singers like Zubeen Garg, Kaysee, and Deeplina deka. However, I recommend adding more references to the article to support these claims. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as all sources are unreliable. I couldn't find any suitable sources to add to the article either. @Thesaurabhsaha: I recommend reading Wikipedia's core notability policies WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. JML1148 (talk) 01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Sorry for the interruption, but I have mentioned some reliable references for the article below, which are already mentioned in the article "Minimi (Rapper)."
- Hindustan Times - Hindustan Times is one of the largest English-language daily newspapers in India. It has a reputation for providing reliable and credible news to its readers.
- Assam Tribune - Assam Tribune is a widely circulated English-language daily newspaper in the state of Assam, India. Established in 1939, it has a long history of providing news and information to the people of Assam and the Northeast region.
- East Mojo - East Mojo is a digital news platform that focuses on providing news and information from the Northeast region of India.

Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources are reliable, but they are only trivial mentions of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's not a trivial mention in Hindustan Times. The article on Hindustan Times has more than 3-4 paragraphs on Minimi (Alternate name: Minimi NL/ Real Name: Nilotpal Lahkar). So, I think you should close the AFD request. In the meantime, I will add more references to the article as soon as I find them on the internet. Thank you. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link you used for the Hindustan Times is one sentence and a few photos. It looks like a badly formatted mobile version of the article, can you provide a better link? Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Assam Times mentions him appearing at a festival and the Mojo is a link to a youtube song and one sentence underneath, these are both trivial coverages. Useful, but not helping notability here. We need more then a mention of him; even if the Hindustan Times article is fine, it's only one article. You'll need a few more of that length, IF it's useful in the first place.Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, here the article without any paywall. Hindustan Times. Ps: I am aware of the copyright status of the newspaper and I am not promoting the use of third-party apps to bypass the paywall. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is better, he's mentioned in the bottom third of the article, but then it seems to disappear again/the article blanks out. I'll give that as one RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Here, I am mentioning two additional articles from popular and reliable sources. Minimi serves as the primary subject of the articles. Both articles are written in Assamese. So, i would recommend you to use Google Translate to read them.

By the way, East Mojo has dedicated a paragraph to him and his song "Bangladeshi," which gained popularity during the Anti-CAA Movement, in Assam. The song sparked controversy throughout the state, prompting the authorities to initially ban it from streaming or public play. However, as tensions subsided, the ban on the song was eventually lifted.

Assam Times Post - Assam Times is an online news portal that focuses on providing news and updates related to the state of Assam in India. It covers a wide range of topics including politics, current affairs, sports, entertainment, and culture.

Rupali Parda - Rupali Parda is an online entertainment portal that provides news, reviews, and updates on Jollywood films (Assamese films), celebrities, and the jollywood entertainment industry.

Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep (article creator). Hindustan Times, East Mojo and other sources seem enough to establish notability. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. No real SIGCOV from a high-quality RS on the subject - if the major Indian papers don't want to do a full piece on him (i.e. SIGCOV), then why would Wikipedia consider him notable? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment. Even if major Indian papers may not have covered someone extensively, there might be other local reliable sources that establish their notability in a different context, such as News website, Entertainment Portal. Why can't local language newspapers be acceptable as sources on Wikipedia if they meet the criteria of reliable sources? Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize the use of reliable sources in any language, including local languages. We should consider The Assam Tribune, East Mojo and Rupali Parda along with Hindustan Times as reliable sources. All of them are used in many articles related to Assam. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue Thesaurabhsaha is that in most of these RS, the article is not about Minimi, but about another topic that happens to mention Minimi participating. The best RS so far is the Hindustan Times which seems to be about several artists, of which Minmi is profiled at the end. However, you have not been able to present +2 RS with a full article about Minimi (per SIGCOV). Therefore, if no decent paper in India wants to do a full article on Minimi, why would Wikipedia consider him notable? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Here are 2 RS with a full article about Minimi (as per SIGCOV), Rupali Parda and Assam Times Post. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't regard the Rupali Parda as an RS (although it is good coverage). I also think the Assam Times Post is also not really an RS. Did The Assam Tribune (which I think is an RS) ever do an article on him, or other notable papers in Assam? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your personal opinion does not hold significance in determining a reliable source on English Wikipedia. Rupali Parda and East Mojo have already been used as reliable sources in numerous articles.

Furthermore, Assam Times Post and Rupali Parda have published articles on the subject. In essence, Rupali Parda can be considered as the "Bollywood Hungama" for Assamese Film Industry aka Jollywod.Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, I don't, but you need to convince the community at AfD that they are RS quality, and I don't think that will happen. I would rather search for better RS on the person and solve it that way. Even if this BLP managed to get through AfD with these refs, it would be renominated soon again. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new participants, new opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Article subject doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources uses, a chunk of them are unreliable while others just include passing mentions. I don't believe WP:SIGCOV has been met in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: According to the Point 10 of WP:MUSICBIO, Anyone who has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, or inclusion on a notable compilation album is eligible for WP:GNG.

He has worked in Kaaneen - A Secret Search movie, which itself a notable film, and won the Silver Camera Award at 2nd Guwahati International Film Festival 2018.¹

The sources mentioned in the above article, namely Hindustan Times, East Mojo, Rupali Parda, Assam Times Post, and others, also appear to be sufficient in establishing notability. All of them have a reputation for providing reliable and credible news to their readers.

References

Guwahati International Film Festival 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesaurabhsaha (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have struck your 2nd !vote User: Thesaurabhsaha, you may only !vote once at AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No real RS here to support GNG. The BLP's creator, User:Thesaurabhsaha, has tried as best they could, but there is nothing here (including the latest refs presented above), and if it wasn't deleted now, it would be sent straight back to AfD. Perhaps, the notability of the subject will improve over time, and at least Thesaurabhsaha has gotten a better understanding of what is needed for GNG. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: He is a popular rapper singer from Assam in the North East (India). -Kuldhar Rabha (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you going to provide any references to support that? AfD is not a vote. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:ATA. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read with Google translator. -Kuldhar Rabha (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the above refs presented have been translated with Google where required. Aszx5000 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have new refs, in any language, you can present them here. Aszx5000 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

APSIG[edit]

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

No indication of third-party notability MrGnocci (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unless independent coverage can be found. I was unable to turn anything up with a quick search. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kokshetau#Industry.. After two relists, no desire to keep this article, but a consensus to redirect as an ATD (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Altyntau Kokshetau[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Corp - only source cited by article is the company's website, and a quick google search only finds this and some database style entries/ways to track the company's stock. (There may be notable sources in languages other than English but I am not able to find these.) Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Kazzinc, the parent company, where it is already mentioned. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions on NCORP and the redirect option are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect: There is a summary paragraph about this plant at Kokshetau#Industry. I don't think there is enough independent coverage of this plant to sustain an article in itself; I am not sure that the Kazzinc article is a durable target, as a substantial proportion of the venture's financial backing appears to involve a Dutch holding company ("Floodgate Holdings B.V."), so the article about Kokshetau may be a better redirect target. AllyD (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WCB Wasafi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was: Blatant WP:PROMO; fails WP:NCORP. While on second look the promo is not obvious, the second part of the reasoning still holds. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Tanzania. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Since the prod reasoning was repeated, I will repeat my contestation: "Certainly not blatant promo, since the founder appears notable, and with six potentially notably signees could qualify as an important indie in WP:MUSIC's sense. It's possible there is walled-garden activity here, but it's not clear to me (a nonexpert on African pop) that's happening". Certainly, there is no reason for this to be at AfD (to create a redlink here), since at worst the applicable action would be to merge into the founder's article. Chubbles (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: The record label qualifies for inclusion based on the founder's notability and its potential impact within the independent music scene, aligning with WP:MUSIC guidelines. While the presence of walled-garden activity is uncertain, it does not justify deletion without concrete evidence. PushaWasha (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeletePer nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - according to [46] it is the largest label in Tanzania. Additional coverage at [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. It is fairly clear that the label is of significant cultural importance in Tanzania, that it meets GNG, and would qualify as "one of the more important indie labels." 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Record label certainly appears notable enough, especially after seeing 78.26's findings immediately above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guy Scheiman[edit]

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

Non-notable independent musician. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Nominated for a major music award; enough to meet WPMUSICBIO. 116.92.232.6 (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep IMA award nomination is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. IMA can be a considered a major award since it has a Wikipedia page of its own. Hkkingg (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I don't think the IMAs are major enough for WP:NMUSICBIO (unlike the awards listed for NMUSICBIO). I can't find any real SIGCOV in a quality RS on him, and can't see the refs that would therefore give him GNG? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced the Independent Music Awards are notable; most of the "winners" don't even have articles, so it appears to be a minor award. I can't find much for sourcing for the DJ otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Oaktree b is an established user, and if they believe they can improve it, there's no reason not to allow that. Star Mississippi 02:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rafael Alun Trisambodo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was closed as no consensus, but zero folks participated, even after 2 relists. Other than the crime, no in-depth coverage of this government bureaucrat. Delete as per WP:PERP, WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Subjects appears to be a WP:BLP1E for the crime and not notable for his government position. Per WP:CRIME, this article should be deleted too. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Indonesia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Coverage in al Jazeera and the Jakarta Post appear ok, should be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Definitely doesn't meet the threshold of WP:CRIME; a minor government official arrested for corruption is certainly not novel, and the coverage entirely extends from that content (so a textbook BLP1E.) With the caveat that we're only a few months out from the story, there doesn't appear to be sustained coverage that this is a major story that has continued on or had material effects beyond the single criminal case as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be ok if we sent to to Draft and let it incubate for a bit, see if notability happens. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case, it doesn’t look like the subject will become more notable in the near future. I think we either keep or delete the article, draftifiying isn’t the answer in my opinion. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oaktree b, can you find anything else that makes the subject notable, otherwise this is a clear WP:BLP1E. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after bold 3rd relist. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lee Sung-wook[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR with majority of the entry unsourced and/or unsourceable to Wikipedia standards. A quick search shows that all of the subject's roles are either supporting or guest which are rarely reported by South Korean media hence making reliable sourcing even harder. The sourcing included are mostly passing mentions with no WP:SIGCOV. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Korea, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: for having significant roles in multiple television shows per NACTOR Jack4576 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jack4576 Any reliable sources to support "having significant roles in multiple television shows" as I don't find any of such. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the sources (such as HanCinema) are reliable enough to support the bare fact that they had the roles in the shows that they did; I think they're unreliable for anything beyond that bare fact, as they're not independent sources Jack4576 (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jack4576 If so, where is the WP:SIGCOV as part of WP:GNG to justify Keep? Clearly, HanCinema and any database websites alikely (e.g. and/or i.e. WP:IMDB, in fact you can't use IMDB in BLP per WP:IMDB/BLP) is not enough to justify it's has SIGCOV hence I asked for reliable sources to prove SIGCOV because you stated "having significant roles in multiple television shows". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your nomination didn't mention SIGCOV, I'd agree SIGCOV has not been met here. Jack4576 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jack4576 SIGCOV is part of WP:GNG btw. Regardless, I don't see that you want to answer my initial reply hence we'll just keep it at that unless you would like to otherwise. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its OK I withdraw my keep vote. You have a better understanding of the depth of coverage in the sources. Jack4576 (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV met, searched and found multiple reliable sources. 33ABGirl (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@33ABGirl Care to provide the "multiple reliable sources" you found? As I couldn't find any showing WP:SIGCOV other than WP:PASSINGMENTIONS hence I'm curious how you manage to find it, if any to begin with. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fararu[edit]

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

It does not have two criteria of web Notability: WP:WEBCRIT Sunfyre (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The nominator misinterpreted the WP:WEBCRIT guideline as and (instead of or) making the WP:BEFORE unclear. I read the lede incorrectly. But the WP:BEFORE is still unclear.2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. Though the website seems to be a popular news outlet in Iran, English-language web search reveals little to no in-depth coverage. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per new sources.2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Apart from its being a popular news website in Iran, it has significant coverage in [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], and [58]. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Coverage in foreign languages counts toward notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random Encounters[edit]

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

PROD removed as I was told to "consider potential notablity of other subjects that redirect here", but I don't see how that effects the notability of this page. There are three redirects here (AJ Pinkerton, CG5 (YouTuber), and NateWantsToBattle), but if none of those are notable enough for their own pages (though Nate might be given the coverage his music has been getting lately) then surely they aren't notable enough to get profiles on an article that itself isn't notable. And as I said in my PROD, I see no apparent claim to notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete All sources are youtube or un-RS. Non-notable web series, the article looks like a fan site rather than a wiki article. Way too long of a list for every episode and not much critical discussion of the thing being mentioned in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 07:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. It has the one source that discusses it in the title of the article, but other than that, it doesn't seem to have the same level of attention. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some articles cover multiple related subjects. If any of the subjects is notable, the article is a keeper. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is here to cover one series, not every person who happens to being involved in it. Those subjects should get their own articles to be judged independently for their own notability. And even if they are notable, notability is not inherited. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Epsilon Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Single source and no more to be found Very Average Editor (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Very Average Editor (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Organizations, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. There were already multiple sources and I have added another one. Ffranc (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, as the article seems good, at least now. Btw, it is a good use of Wikipedia, to provide coverage of conspiracy theories, IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep a lot of reliable greek sourscew about the subject, websites and books. ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M.L.R.T. Gala Pioneer English School[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Only school databases could be found as sources. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hasan Doğan (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Assyrtiko (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Assyrtiko (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I'm not familiar at all with Turkish politics... But he is the Chief of the Cabinet of the president, this should only mean that he passes the SNG for politicians. Ap m h 14:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: "Chief of the Cabinet" seems to be a mistranslation of this office, which translates more accurately as private secretary or chief of staff. Not sure this is an WP:NPOL-conferring position, but may still pass by WP:GNG, as there appear to be several sources providing WP:SIGCOV, including (but not limited to) this and this. Curbon7 (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. He is not the "Chief of the Cabinet of the Turkish President". The Turkish term is Özel kalem müdürü, which is nothing close to the "chief of the cabinet". It's basically the "manager" of the president, in other words someone who plans the president's schedule, the events the president attends, etc. He is not notable. I don't think the biographical articles on the given news sites above would suffice for "significant coverage", since you can find plenty of such entries for people whose Wikipedia articles would easily get deleted for notability issues, if they had one. Aintabli (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sky Hawk Times[edit]

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

The article does not provide a single reliable source for in-depth media coverage BoraVoro (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment- In India, any newspaper having Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) is a enough to be included in Wikipedia. This (page no 292) says this newspaper's RNI is 71814. We can consider to keep for time being. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guidelines of the English Wikipedia only require the inclusion of several trustworthy sources. No mention of having Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI). Sorry BoraVoro (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will and testament of clerics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was up for deletion over a year ago and passed with a "keep", but has not had a single edit between then and my nominating it for AfD today. The article is only three sentences long and consists mostly of vague assertions which are not supported by the only cited source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. "The will and testament of clerics is a controversial issue for a number of Christian denominations"? There is no evidence given of any controversy nor any explanation of what that controversy is, nor is any specific denomination mentioned in this article. "Many churches have rules on the way in which property that is owned by a cleric can be distributed on death"? That would seem to be primarily an issue for churches whose clergy have taken a vow of poverty and/or are celibate, as I would expect that churches with married clergy would allow the clergy to leave their property upon death to their spouse and/or children. If churches with married clergy do have such rules, no evidence has been provided of such rules. And with regard to the Catholic Church, which does have rules about the wills and testaments of clerics, there is no indication in this article of what those rules are. Since there was no attempt to improve the article after the last AfD, I believe it would be best to delete this article altogether, with the opportunity to re-create it if substantive, sourced content can be found later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nomination, and like a comment in the last nomination said, this is essentially a non-subject of relevancy to nothing. It doesn't help that the closer simply gave the reason of: "The result was keep." to an outcome of obviously weak consensus. We do not create articles based on vaguely supported subjects mentioned a few times in various references (like this one) which is why there is no article for say "sharpness of knives" - Ap m h 05:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I remember this from last year. Still nothing terribly notable has been added to the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I can imagine a decent article named "Clerical property in the Catholic Church" considering the plethora of sources on that, but the current article is not about a subject worthy of its own article per rationales stated above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It's not very often that I vote delete, but there isn't really anything here to save. If somebody wants to write a proper article at some point, all power to them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jean Dubuis[edit]

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

The references are Mr. Dubuis's own writings and other such primary sources. I looked for better ones and found only self-published or dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality. gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep "dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality" are appropriate references for this topic. If you can add them in that would do as independent references. I added in an independent external link, that is about a third of what is needed for GNG proof. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to see more participation here. It would make a closure more straight-forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep echoing @Graeme Bartlett the chief complaint here seems to be the nature of the sources cited, not the lack of sources. Aside from the primary sources (not unusual for an author) the article cites a number of websites that treat Dubuis as important, for example[59],[60]. I just added this[61] from the Theosophical Society. These independent sources vouch for his importance among members of the community of alchemy researchers, substantiating WP:NAUTHOR#1, namely that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Oblivy (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

House of Mónek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/House of Monok

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

The notability of the article is not verified by references to reliable sources. The article is based on the creator's own research of church books and passenger lists.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 03:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete no coverage in RS found. (t · c) buidhe 22:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 03:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Shadow in Eternity[edit]

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

At present, the article only cites a single primary source. I have conducted a Google search, as well as individually searched for the book on Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Shelf Awareness to check for reviews or other indications of notability. I have not seen references to the book aside from from booksellers and primary sources. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'll note the author has no article, but this looks arguably RS. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Jclemens that the site looks reliable but haven't been able to access the full review because of their paywall. Same with this from The Hindu. This from Indian Express is more about the author than the series but does provide some coverage. There's also this passing mention in a story about Indian LGBT books. I strongly suspect that soemone with full access to these sources would find enough information to demonstrate notability under our guidelines, but since I'm unable to verify this 100% myself I'll not formally vote to keep but yeah that's what I suspect. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cowin Capital[edit]

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

Not evidence of significant coverage outside of its own published material and a couple of secondary references. The firm's notability might be considered insufficient if it doesn't meet these guidelines. NortonAngo (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Please check WP:BEFORE before nominating again, none of these references are published by Cowin Capital. I'm not seeing any reliability issues with the references that are used, either. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 17:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete Only one source could qualify as a reliable source - the London Business School. The rest are not reliable at all. The page should be deleted as it does not fulfill the NCORP criteria. --159.118.233.94 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Case Study: Yin and Yang" (PDF). No. 7. Coller Institute of Private Equity. London Business School. Winter 2012. pp. 16–17. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04.
  The article notes: "Against this background, the Shenzhen Cowin Venture Capital fund represents a perfect opportunity for a case study by the London Business School’s Coller Institute of Private Equity. ... The result is Cowin Capital: The Evolution of the Chinese PE & VC Industry, produced by Professor Talmor, together with MBA students Wei Cao, Masaki Takeda and Carolyn Tiet. Founded during the dot-com bubble in 2000, Cowin survived the ensuing crash that saw many nascent Chinese VC funds fold. Not only that, but it went on to achieve impressive success following the regulatory changes of the mid- 2000s. "The key questions are: how Cowin has managed to transform itself and what it is doing to perpetuate its success," says Talmor. Cowin grew from cautious beginnings to become one of Shenzhen's leading PE lights. Having launched six funds in total, the firm currently manages RMB 5.5bn of capital and assets valued at more than RMB 7.5bn. As of June 2012, 31 of its investments had resulted in distributions to Cowin's investors, including 23 IPOs and eight buybacks or trade sales. Its success has earned Cowin founder Weihe Zheng the moniker "Star Shooter"."
2. Liu, Pingsheng 刘平生; He, Jie 何杰, eds. (2022). 深圳经济特区金融40年 [40 years of finance in Shenzhen Special Economic Zone] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press. ISBN 978-7-52-019390-0. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Google Books.
  The book has an entire subsection about the company. The book notes: "2000年6月26日,同创伟业成。 2004年,随中小的开,同创伟业资的达基实现IPO,随后在2005年轴研科技也顺利实现了IPO,同创伟业在中小开前50 中占据两。达基是同创伟业首个IPO项目,也是本土创首个上例。 2007年6月26日,同创伟业先发起成中国一有合伙制"
  From Google Translate: "On June 26, 2000, Cowin Capital was established. In 2004, with the opening of small and medium-sized enterprises, Daji, which was funded by Cowin Capital, realized its IPO, and then in 2005, Axis Technology also successfully realized its IPO, and Cowin Capital occupied two of the top 50 small and medium-sized enterprises. Daji is the first IPO project of Cowin Capital, and it is also the first domestic case. On June 26, 2007, Cowin Capital was the first to initiate into China's one-owned partnership system."
3. He, Shasha 何莎莎 (2010). "同创伟业顺势而为" [Cowin Capital seizes opportunities]. 投资与合作 [Investment and Cooperation] (in Chinese). No. 9. ISSN 1004-387X. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "用硕果累累来形容深圳市同创伟业创业投资有限公司（以下简称为同创伟业）最近的投资表现一点都不为过。 2010年8月12日乐视网在深圳交易所创业板挂牌、8月3日深圳欧菲光科技正式在深交所上市、7月8日湛江国联水产开发股份有限公司登陆深交所创业板、5月26日康芝药业于深交所创业板实现上市"
  From Google Translate: "It is not an exaggeration to describe the recent investment performance of Shenzhen Cowin Capital, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Cowin Capital) with fruitful results. On August 12, 2010, LeTV was listed on the GEM of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On August 3, Shenzhen OFILM Technology was officially listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On July 8, Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Development Co., Ltd. landed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange’s GEM. On May 26 Kangzhi Pharmaceutical was listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of Shenzhen Stock Exchange."
4. Zheng, Weihe 郑伟鹤 (2011). "同创伟业健康成长" [Cowin Capital: healthy growth]. 投資与合作 [Investment and Cooperation Magazine] (in Chinese). No. 2. ISSN 1004-387X. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "2010年，同创伟业共投资了30个项目，并且有8个项目IPO，平均回报率达到10倍。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2010, Cowin Capital invested in a total of 30 projects, and had 8 IPO projects, with an average rate of return of 10 times."
5. Zhao, Di 赵迪 (2009). "郑伟鹤:做创业者的同行者" [Zheng Weihe: being a fellow entrepreneur]. 股市动态分析 [Stock Market Dynamic Analysis] (in Chinese). No. 12. ISSN 1001-0432. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "2000年,郑伟鹤创建了深圳市同创伟业投资有限公司,从一名律师转型为一名私募股权投资基金经理人。截至2009年6月,在同创伟业投资的项目中,已经有四个项目在中小企业板上市。如今,已经跨入不惑之年的郑伟鹤依旧在执着于他的PE理想。正如他公司的名称———同创伟业所诠释的那样,做创业者的同行者。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2000, Zheng Weihe founded Shenzhen Cowin Capital, transforming from a lawyer to a private equity investment fund manager. As of June 2009, among the projects invested by Cowin Capital, four projects have been listed on the SME board. Today, Zheng Weihe, who has entered his forties, is still obsessed with his PE ideal. As the name of his company --- Cowin Capital explained, he is a fellow entrepreneur."
6. Yu, Yong 于勇 (2011). "同创伟业2010年参投上市项目半数变脸" [In 2010, Cowin Capital (simplified Chinese: 同创伟业; traditional Chinese: 同創偉業) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent participated in half of the listed projects and changed its face]. 股市动态分析 [Stock Market Dynamic Analysis] (in Chinese). No. 26. ISSN 1001-0432. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "如果说一家医药企业不以患者安全为最高准则,那么即使它倒下,也将是社会的一大收获。而一家资金显赫的创投企业,投资资金入股一家这样的医药企业,作为如今盛行的创业投资资金Pre-IPO项目,PE盛宴之后。"
  From Google Translate: "Abstract: If a pharmaceutical company does not regard patient safety as the highest criterion, even if it falls, it will be a great harvest for the society. And a well-funded venture capital company invests funds in such a pharmaceutical company, as a pre-IPO project of venture capital funds that is prevalent today, after the PE feast."
7. Deng, Shuanglin 邓双琳 (2020). "同创伟业捕捉科创板"隐形冠军"" [Cowin Capital captures the "hidden champion" of the Science and Technology Innovation Board]. 创业邦 [Entrepreneur] (in Chinese). No. 7. ISSN 1674-3601. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [zh].
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cowin Capital (simplified Chinese: 同创伟业; traditional Chinese: 同創偉業) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Cunard. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The first two references listed by Cunard above meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Home Sweet Home (Dennis Robbins song)[edit]

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

Apart from the billboard, there is nothing remarkable. Redirecting this to Dennis Robbins may be a better alternative. DreamRimmer (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would at least be worth a merger rather than just a straight redirect. The song is mentioned on Robbins' page, but the Billboard review isn't and the specific charting isn't in prose. Although I did also find blurbs and charting in Cashbox ([62][63][64][65][66]) which could be enough to keep. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass WP:NSONG, as it spent 20 weeks on chart based on this link. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets WP:NSONG. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a few more opinions before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Hey man im josh. Meets WP:NSONG. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is of insufficient depth to meet N:ORG Star Mississippi 02:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Osmow's Shawarma[edit]

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

Osmow's is not notable- there is very little significant media coverage, if any about it. Most media coverage is trivial. It is a small family-business with a handful of locations in Canada. Most information about Osmow's comes from the company itself, or places like Narcity, which are only talking about their food promotions and not why this company is notable. There are fast food places like Shanghai 360 or Villa Madina, which are similar to this one and have a few locations in Canada, and they are not notable enough either (and don't have their own articles on Wikipedia). Therefore, I think that this article should be deleted due to a lack of notability. 747pilot (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I oppose this motion.

Firstly, I'm not really sure what your definition of "a handful" is. Using your chosen stores for comparison, Villa Madina has 24 locations nationwide, and Shanghai 360 has 22 nationwide. Both of those brands mostly operate within mall food courts. Shanghai 360 doesn't even have a website. Therefore, it makes sense that there is no article about them. I fail to see how they're "similar" to Osmow's in any way. Osmow's, on the other hand, has over 140 locations, and it keeps opening new stores rather quickly. Since this article was written, there's a new location that opened in Winnipeg and that hasn't been updated yet in the article. Not only that, they tend to open a lot of stores in small towns that would never have known what shawarma is and the company has been important in introducing shawarma to the wider Canadian society. I'm not sure how that isn't notable.

Osmow's has also done advertising campaigns that are pretty much unheard from companies of its size, including the NBA Finals commercial that was mentioned in the article.

There are a bunch of articles on Wikipedia on Canadian chains that have less locations, less sources, and frankly a large number of them would also have to be deleted if going by the criteria that you listed.

Secondly, with regards to sourcing, there are other sources that detail its history and its growth that are in the references section of the article. There are only two articles that are about food promotions.

Andrepoiy (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andrepoiy: just because they have 140 stores doesn't mean they are notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Notice that a lot of the media coverage is trivial. It's not substantial. Places like Tim Hortons have substantial media coverage and they are notable. But this fast food restaurant just isn't notable. 747pilot (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The number of locations a company has doesn't constitute notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: a ProQuest search returns dozens of hits. Many are of the form "Osmow's opens new restaurant in [LOCATION]", but a few seem to be more in-depth articles. I cannot access the articles to assess their value. Mind matrix 17:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - there's decent GNG coverage in the article - the Mississauga News article in particular is excellent. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that article is behind a paywall, which hampers an assessment of notability. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a paywall for that Mississauga News article, User:TheInsatiableOne; perhaps it's some regional block? The reference also includes an archived version at archive.org. I'll improve this reference in the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a promo article masquerading as news, it relies entirely on information provided by the company and it owners and has zero "Independent Content" which is a requirement (see WP:ORGIND). HighKing⁺⁺ 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously some information in the article comes from various interviews over time. But that to say it entirely relies on information provided by the company is false. Why would the company have provided the Mississauga News information about the business winning the 2018 Mississauga News award? That just doesn't make sense. The article meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the information which might qualify as in-depth information was provided in the interview or by the company. I've no comment on why it doesn't make sense to you - I mean the company used boast about the award on their website so it makes sense to me. The article isn't independent so it can't meet GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist. Let’s form a stronger consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 03:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I know this chain, we have some in my locality (great shawarmas too). Agreed that most sources are simply about a new location opening. Some sponsorship details for the World Cup [67] with a Canadian athlete, but it's all PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete THis is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As noted above, the Mississauga News article meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just cos you wish to ignore NCORP (which provides detailed explanations and examples of how to interpret GNG for companies) doesn't mean that you can interpret GNG in a less meaningful manner and then claim the article meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article is advertorial, relying entirely on an interview with company execs. It is not independent. If you think otherwise, that's your perogative - but others will disagree and the closing admin will weigh everything according to consensus and applicable guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic Education High School No. 5 Botataung[edit]

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

This subject is simply not notable. It reads like a simple fanpage/vanity article. A BEFORE search came up with nothing useable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Myanmar. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, seems to be a vanity page. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As per those above, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 15:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't meet the general notability and verifiability requirements. There are no reliable sources at all.Ertrinken (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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