< November 11	November 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn‎. I Withdraw the nomination, but if the article is not improved within a few months I will be renominating it. (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Coram Foundation for Children[edit]

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

Poorly Written Article Written like an Advertisement. See WP:NOTADVERT (Speedy Deletion Denied for G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article warrants a rewrite but not a deletion. Is a major UK charity. --Mervyn (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a quick look and easily found significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I've done a quick edit and added some independent sources; although the article needs more work, the subject is notable and sources are available. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Montgomery[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Africa, Slovakia, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 gnews hits says it all. Otherwise it is primary sources, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Garth[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Slovakia, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 of the 4 sources are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Shannon[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Latvia, Moldova, United Kingdom, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are all primary. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable as nom points out. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morales (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

Another minor Walking Dead character. Once again all coverage is casting information and episode summaries, there is interviews but those arent independent. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. BOZ (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting to that page would be more sutable as the information there is sufficent.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per all. There aren't enough sources here, but this would WP:PRESERVE the history for someone to revisit. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Total Artist Management[edit]

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

Artist management company that fails WP:GNG. The sources provided in the article are all problematic: the first and last are listings of the company (zero depth of coverage), Discogs (also zero depth in this case) and AllMusic are unreliable and discuss the company's founder, not the company itself, and the rest are about the first band that the company represented but simply include a short quote of Warren Askew (the founder of the agency) without providing anything close to significant coverage of the company (or Askew). Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Management. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails ORGCRIT. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t need to cover the company as he is the manager working on behalf of the company so by covering Warren Askew is covering the company, Also you have to keep in mind that managers represent the band so basically he is doing his job of covering the band not himself or the company as a manager that’s all he can do as he works for the band on behalf of the company, Many thanks. Punk Rock London (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* keep: meet all the requirements as a music manager on behalf of the company according to the Music Managers Forum, Please read the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:429F:D4CE:C871:C1E7:4603:60D3 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment I have struck the above comment as it appears to be a WP:LOUTSOCK of the article creator. This user has already made several disruptive edits, so feel free to report to ANI or AIV if any further disruption occurs. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep:It totally met all requirements to have a Wikipedia page as there's enough references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szilvia1234 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I have struck the above comment as well. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Punk Rock London. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Very little in general. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a WP:CORPDEPTH issue. No better way to highlight a lack of notability than sockpuppetry. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Penalty (ice hockey). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slashing (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Per WP:DICTIONARY, this article isn't notable. It goes as far as to define slashing, and not much more can be said that isn't already said about it. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Merge to Penalty (ice hockey)- per ATD 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common ice hockey penalty and perfectly sourced stub. I see no real reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Ice hockey~~Penalty (ice hockey): That it is a common hockey penalty is as may be, but is no part of any notability criteria, and with just a single primary reference, I am at an utter loss as to how this could be considered "perfectly sourced" -- that's the definition of inadequately sourced. For anyone for whom those aren't good enough reasons in of itself, that this also violates WP:DICDEF is another. Ravenswing 09:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn’t the list of infractions section at Penalty (ice hockey) be a more appropriate place to merge it? --NHL04 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would I haven't thoroughly read the Ice hockey article so I was unaware of that article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to penalty article. Don't really see why this should be a standalone. The Kip 19:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Penalty (ice hockey) as it would fit better with the rest of the infractions. Powerplay44 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Stone Temple Pilots (2010 album). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon (song)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Possible redirect to album, though I am not sure song title is unambiguous. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG and a check of the usual databases didn't turn up anything to counter that. No comment on redirecting. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stone Temple Pilots (2010 album): A late-era band's promotional single which didn't chart at all would probably not be getting any more coverage than some brief mentions in album reviews and other album coverage. Completely unsurprisingly, that was all I found, and that does not confirm a song's notability. Redirecting songs to their album is standard and should be the default so long as said album has an article to send to. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found this from RS and this about the song's leaked music video and another official release which might arguably sum up SIGCOV with other passing mentions through album reviews. Leaning towards redirect or possibly merge, please ping me if more sources are presented. dxneo (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be Ugly[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that this meets WP:N in itself, or is worth, considering the lack of notability and sources, a redirect to Ugly Betty. Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Health and fitness, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything on this. Redirecting the two words, are just redirecting a negative, and probably would be better deleted entirely. — Maile (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ian Dorricott. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bats (musical)[edit]

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

Mainly unsourced article with no evidence of notability, nor could I find any. Possible redirect to Ian Dorricott, but I wouldn't propose a merge as so much of this is unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, Romania, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This musical has, apparently, never had a professional production. I found only one article about an actual production ([1]) of it, and the only link in the article itself is to the musical's page at the school musicals licensing company, Maverick Musicals. The mention of it on Dorricott's page is adequate, I think, to document its existence on Wikipedia. BTW, the plot summary is pretty much a cut and paste from material that MM distributes, as one can see from the article I linked above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to composer Ian Dorricott per nominee's alternative to deletion. Its still being performed 40 years after it was written. Obviously, its early productions are not described online and hence its difficult to verify whether any were professional or semi-professional.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barron[edit]

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

He has produced work for notable publications, but I couldn't find evidence that he himself is notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Photography, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not make a claim that satisfies WP:ARTIST. Does not pass WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Existing sources are 100% primary. I searched the web and did not find any independent reliable sources. This article has barely changed since it was first created in 2006, by an editor who only seemed to contribute a few edits almost exclusively around the topic of Switchfoot. Note that Barron does not appear to be this photographer also by the name of Andy Barron. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A puff piece about a non-notable photographer. Fails WP:ANYBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like he's worked for some notable outlets, but there really isn't anything in terms of coverage about the subject himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Lopifalko dxneo (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Barnard[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Photography, Environment, Aviation, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just can't find adequate sourcing. Tone is pretty promotional too.
Delete Does not pass WP:NBASIC and does not meet the bar for WP:ANYBIO or any other additional criteria of notability for people. I searched the web but did not find independent reliable sources. Parts of the article read like an advertisement and goes on at length to associate the subject with family members. I found this interview (which does not count toward notability). I removed a number of WP:REFSPAM sources and all other included sources really scraped the barrel; I removed all bar one. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN individual, fails all cited notability policies. UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Despite the extensive length of the messages opposing deletion, this is actually a very straightforward closure, because the "delete" arguments are grounded in policy, while the "keeps" simply aren't. I don't see any point in a detailed analysis of why each of the arguments given for keeping fails, but to illustrate the points, I will describe two of them. Firstly, there is a total failure to grasp the point of WP:BURDEN. Not only is it contrary to Wikipedia policy to take the line "I believe that this article should be kept, but it's up to you to provide sources to show that it should", but it's also contrary to logic. Secondly, "there probably are refs out there" is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. JBW (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Androsov[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have you done WP:BEFORE with Russian sources? You can use Google translate. Even then it's harder to find Russian sources. He's a big deal in Mytishchi, and if he was an American, with his achievements, he'd surely have enough articles etc. to rate an article. We don't want to be too Anglo-centric here. Heck we want to try to bring in articles about people outside the Anglosphere. I translated this article from the Russian Wikipedia (Андросов, Валерий Владимирович). There are seven references there. I didn't put them all in. There's only one of me. OP could do the work instead of trying to delete the article. The article in Russian Wikipedia has been there 15 years, so they're fine with it I guess.

As a general rule, I think that if there's an article in the Russian Wikipedia, it should be considered that an article in the Wikipedia would probably be a good idea. Within reason. To avoid Anglocentrism. I'm sure there are really obscure things that, even if they have a good Russian article, should not be brought over, if it would have basically zero interest to anyone except a Russian. Androsov is not one of them. None of this is written down anywhere, but it's still a good de-facto rule to follow. Sorry for going on, I'm like that. Herostratus (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read:

"demonstrate his mastery of modern materials"
"have retained ergonomic and aesthetic appeal over the decades"
"has had a major impact on the memorial architecture of the city of Mytishchi"
"one of the major monuments in the city of Mytishchi"
"a significant event in the cultural life of the city of Mytishchi"
"one of the city's dominant architectural works"
"has won prizes for various monument projects"
"was awarded the Medal 'Veteran of Labour' and the Medal 'In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow'"

Notability indeed. Or anyway, notability if these can be believed. And to be believed, each has to be backed up with a reliable source. Currently, none of them is. Herostratus is an experienced editor in good standing, and if they say they can read Russian and that good sources can be provided, I'll believe it. But if Herostratus wants an article for Androsov, then creating a decently referenced one is their job, not ours. Herostratus is free to (temporarily?) remove some of the claims above. But of the claims that remain, the majority should be soundly sourced. As long as they aren't, this should be draftified. I'd then trust Herostratus to promote it to article status when it merits this, and not before. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph. Hmph, I say. Re "If Herostratus wants an article for Androsov, then creating a decently referenced one is their job, not ours" c'mon, building the Wikipedia is everyone's job; almost all articles are worked on by several editors. And you can't "trust" me do everything you want me to, or actually anything. I'm busy. If you don't want readers to see the article, say so. Don't put in my userspace without my permission. I don't "own" this article any more than any other editor does. I'd be willing to consider supporting draftifying to your userspace if you will undertake to bring it up to your standards. If you can't read Russian, you could learn.

But beyond all that, it's been my understanding that an article is usually kept if it has sufficient reliable sources or could have. If we're now onto deleting articles that don't currently have sufficient refs, even tho they are out there, that's a lot of articles. It's supposed to be the nominators job to do WP:BEFORE and, on finding good and necessary refs, put them in themselves or else at least pass on sending the article here. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I want to create an article about something or somebody, then it should be decently referenced and it's me who should provide this decent referencing. Note "decent", not "entirely satisfactory", let alone "unsurpassable". Others could come along and improve the referencing here and there, and I'd hope that they'd do just that. A major reason why it should be me who attempts to reference all of my new article is that I'd know which bit of it came from which reliable source, and it's far easier for me to create a decent article "forwards" than it is for other editors to create one backwards. No, Herostratus, I don't want this draft in my userspace, because I have little interest in its subject (although more than I have in the subjects of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of other articles), and realize that I'd have little competence to improve it. Anyway, I'm busy too, though I try not to trouble other editors with my own creations (my most recent fresh creation, IIRC, subsequently improved somewhat, and of course welcoming further improvements by others). -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' per Herostratus, a full and certainly adequate defense of the page. Please remember that at AfD finding good sources and discussing them will save an article, even if the sources are not currently used on the page. The sources establish notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur. This topic fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding reliable sources to add to the uncited information presented in the English article. A translation of the Russian article doesn't have sources that show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herostratus, "doesn't currently have sufficient refs." Feel free to draftify to my userspace where I will work on it after I've learned the required Russian. Elspea756 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you studying Russian now, or are you just being sarcastic? Herostratus (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am studying Russian now. Elspea756 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent. But as to "doesn't currently have sufficient refs" being a reason for deletion or draftifying an article, no, that is not the usual standard. It it was, over half our articles would be subject to immediate destruction, and that's several million articles. When coming across an problematic article, I have found this 1-2-3 rubric appropriate:

1) Find and put in the refs yourself.

2) If you don't have time/interest/competence for that (very very likely, and fine), tag the most problematic statements and/or the whole article as a whole as needing refs.

3) If you don't have time/interest/competence for that -- we're talking a couple-few minutes, for an article that may have taken a colleague hours to write -- if you can't be bothered to do that, then move on, go do something constructive.

Tagging serves two purposes: it alerts the reader to take the tagged material with a grain of salt, and it flags other editors (or readers) that the article needs some reffing work. Tagging doesn't mean "Look at this garbage". It means "Hello, citizen! Here is a place where the article could be improved! You're invited to pitch in if you're so inclined."

If you find or think that the article can't be reffed, that's different. If the article is about something that looks trivial and the writer didn't put in any refs, there probably aren't any. Probably.

But, if it's a good and decent-sized article about a subject that doesn't seem trivial on its face -- 14th century Bulgarian poet, archeological site, Russia artist, whatever -- then there probably are refs out there, its just that nobody has put them in yet. Most people don't usually write six dense paragraphs on a not-obviously-trivial subjects for which no refs exist. Or there might be refs, but not enough good ones. You'll find this if you do WP:BEFORE.

So, there are a lot of subtleties. Of course there are, this is a very complicated operation we're running here. Facts live on a continuum of importance and liklihood. If there are facts that are somewhat important and seem like they might be dubious, you could just delete those ones, if you think tagging won't do; we don't want to seriously mislead our readers. Many facts are not very important and/or are very likely true. Tagging is usually better for those. One has to use one wits to make one's best judgement here; no rule can guide one. In this article, for instance, whether or not Androsov was director of the Mytishchi Art Gallery is important, but very likely he was. Nothing's impossible, but it's not the sort of thing that somebody would just make up, or get wrong. Conversely, there might be stuff that is more likely to be wrong but is trivial. Both of these are worth tagging! They are! Absolutely, tag them, and thank you. But, they're not necessarily a good reason for, you know, erasing the article altogether. For one thing, deleting an article stops cold its improvement. Its hard to add refs to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading all of that. You've already left multiple lengthy comments which I have previously read and responded to. Don't bother replying to me again. Thanks. Elspea756 (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want to destroy my hours of work on a reasonably-OK article for the stated reason that "doesn't currently have sufficient refs" is all that's needed, yet you won't take five minutes to read about how that is not OK and giving some tips about how you might consider these issues more deeply (or at least correctly). Got it. Please strike your vote. If you won't, I request that the closer disregard it. You're not willing to take five minutes to become more educated (or at least hear another voice) on what we're, I don't know, trying to do here, and decline to engage. This is not good. You should not be participating in AfD discussions, so for the good of the project please stop, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need more time to work on this. Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged since 2010. It has been on AfD for a week. You have spent time discussing why the article should be kept, rather than adding sources to the uncited paragraphs of the article. Plenty of time to make the additions (that no one else can find). It is not reasonable to keep an article on a non-notable person because an editor insists there is something out there. Your bludgeoning is not persuasive. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move X-ray generator to X-ray machine‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray machine[edit]

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

Is this a WP:DICDEF, or a very poorly built disambiguation page? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best thing to do with this article is to move it to draft space. Its topic is notable enough for having a Wikipedia article, but having looked at the article, it seems too concise and basic to constitute a proper article. YTKJ (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Medicine. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with the original redirect at Special:Permalink/302277061? The target mentions X-ray machines 8 times, rather belieing the claim at Talk:X-ray generator#Change name to "X-ray machine"? that the target article isn't about X-ray machines. Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The real article was moved to X-ray generator, and the redirect it left worked fine for 8 years when someone decided to overlay it with this "article" (which obscures the thing most accessors would be looking for IMO). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article seems only concerned with medical and security imaging devices. It doesn't deal with other types of X-ray generators, such as Synchrotrons, or applications, such as X-ray diffraction. To my mind, the generator is only the part of the device that generates the x-rays, and this is made rather redundant by X-ray tube. So I would support a move of X-ray generator back to X-ray machine as the WP:COMMONNAME of medical and security X-ray devices. Polyamorph (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A proper Dab seems to be the best thing to do with this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X-ray. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Changed after reading comments from Polyamorph. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move X-ray generator back to X-ray machine and tag for cleanup, per my comments above and at Talk:X-ray generator. It seems the talk page wasn't moved with the main page, so a history merge may be required there. Polyamorph (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move X-ray generator back to X-ray machine, per Polyamorph's convincing argument. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lefter Koxhaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was already deleted due to discussion here in August, due to subject not being notable. There has been no evolution in the subject's notability since then. Delete and WP:SALT. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Albania, and Kosovo. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no improvement. None of the issues that were raised at the previous deletion discussion were addressed. The currently cited sources (which also includes one unreliable forum source) do not really give an in-depth coverage about him. His death at the 2001 Skopje police raid is the only thing that he's notable for. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even a valid argument,last time you said it was a useless page,you clearly you knew it wasn't useless still wanted to delete it now your using this Argument,this is vandalizing AcEagle12 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is the only commander of NLA who didn't have a wiki page so I created it deleting it is a mistake,and the reason why it got deleted last time is because it had no sources and I added 4 sources so it shouldn't be deleted AcEagle12 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely and utterly ridiculous - this isn't a notable person. Being a commander doesn't make anyone notable, and the lack of other coverage indicates that, again, this person doesn't meet GNG much less any more specific criteria. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hes not just a normal commander he's the founder of the Skanderbeg Special Unit which is one of the most famous units of the 2001 insurgency,if this page gets deleted then by your logic you must delete every single 2001 insurgency commander page and this guy is one of the most important commanders he's very notable AcEagle12 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lochmus[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Refs are passing mentions, profiles. scope_creep^Talk 15:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review nominator's history the past 5 weeks of systematically deleting any page I have submitted the past 6 years. This is obviously deliberate and personal, and not based on notability. This is a power move and nominator's actions on the past deletions should be looked into. Stravensky (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources provided are largely unreliable, including IMDb as a "source". HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Mecelis[edit]

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

Not notable. Any GNG sources in the article are about the company, not the individual; they don't provide the significant coverage required to meet the standards of WP:GNG or WP:BASIC for a biographical article. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep satisfies WP:GNG there are personal bits (not just mention in passsing) if you search foor his full Lithanian name: Žilvinas Mecelis. - Altenmann >talk 21:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article are mentions and an interview, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, NOTINHERITED applies. BEFORE, including searching "Žilvinas Mecelis" turned up sources similar to the articles, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV, the keep vote provides no sources to eval. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and all sources are not notable to have its own BLP. Additionally, there is a lack of reliable sources to meet SIGCOV and if there are any, they represent companies instead of the subject of this BLP. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silverlight (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:ONEOTHER; only one other topic, but I think Microsoft Silverlight is the main one, so I added a link to Terry Silverlight in a hatnote on the target page; this doesn't really seem needed LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 13:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 13:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: hatnote from Microsoft to Terry is all that is needed. PamD 08:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with the addition of "Silver Light" entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfriend's addition of two related articles supported by convention of style. I think it remains a useful enough DAB page that it is not necessary to delete it, given the term does have various unrelated uses. I may suggest that Silver light (disambiguation) could be created as a redirect also, given the above additions are not a single word. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add Silver light (disambiguation) as a redir, per Bungle. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. BD2412 T 19:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slutwave[edit]

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

Fails General notability guideline. Not enough reliable, significant coverage. Most sources are just blogs or tabloid articles. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Music. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the GNG. It's also a WP:BLP problem to list off artists when the article openly states it's a pejorative, and the sourcing is concurrently so weak. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 in the article itself is a post-graduate research paper, neither 'blog nor tabloid. And doi:10.5209/INFE.54975 that discusses this is a peer-reviewed journal article. Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dear God, no. You'd be slapped if you told an artist they were in this genre and nearly all the links are to users who made public playlists under the name (and in regards to #2, Academia.edu is a pay-for-play site). Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find a couple of possibly usable sources which mention slutwave (e.g. [2], [3]), but no in depth coverage. Of the sources cited in the article, this is an opinion piece which might be usable under WP:RSOPINION, while this is apparently self-published by a student; I can find no evidence of publication by a reliable source. Given the inevitable BLP concerns around this article mentioned by Sergecross we should expect much better sourcing than this; the claim to notability here is tenuous at best. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WINAD Mach61 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus here against deletion. Improvement of the article (including splits elsewhere) can still be done/discussed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinianism[edit]

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

It's an essay. It's a good essay! But it's a terrible encyclopedia page. It's in no way objective and seeks to build a specific narrative. It uses quotes selectively to buttress this idea, and outside of the quotations uses subjective language for the same end. It's also somewhat incomprehensible, but that's no reason to delete a page rather than to fix it. Rather, the page exists solely to push a narrative, and doesn't do much besides for that. It's also just not a commonly-used term at all, as a quick Google search shows, so I'm doubtful it hits notability requirements. In sum: it's a subjective essay about a dubiously notable subject. But an interesting read, if it was on a blog somewhere, where it might belong. Bruhpedia (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there isnt a cogent deletion rationale besides "it's an essay", but the sources cited deal with the topic of the article, making it not an essay of an editor's own views but rather a summary of the views of scholars. That somebody cant comprehend a page makes it so that it is the page that is at fault is both a curiosity left for others to unravel as well as not being a deletion rationale. nableezy - 10:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable. And it's entirely subjective—it's written as opinion. It's a blog post. The fact that it is sourced is irrelevant—anyone who has attended middle school knows to add sources to argumentative essays. The fact that all of the sources are specifically chosen to bolster the author's claims, and, yes, as you say, to give it a veneer of plausible deniability, is less so.

In addition, though the prosaic writing is incidental, "a curiosity left for others to unravel" is an atrocious way to run an encyclopedia.
Have you read the article? Bruhpedia (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story. On Wikipedia when sources deal with a subject as a subject then it is notable. And what we do is summarize their views. The curiosity is that you think that if you can’t understand an article the article is the problem and not your ability to understand it. Your inability comprehend to read the article is your problem. Not Wikipedia’s. Also, the words veneer, plausible, and deniability do not appear in my comment. So either you have that same inability to read my comment as the article or you are making things up when you attribute things to me I never said. nableezy - 14:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A paraphrase (/ˈpærəˌfreɪz/) is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words. The term itself is derived via Latin paraphrasis, from Ancient Greek παράφρασις (paráphrasis) 'additional manner of expression'. The act of paraphrasing is also called paraphrasis.

Although paraphrases likely abounded in oral traditions, paraphrasing as a specific educational exercise dates back to at least Roman times, when the author Quintilian recommended it for students to develop dexterity in language. In the Middle Ages, this tradition continued, with authors such as Geoffrey of Vinsauf developing schoolroom exercises that included both rhetorical manipulations and paraphrasing as a way of generating poems and speeches. There is interest in the study of paraphrases relating to concerns around plagiarism and original authorship.^[1]

For the purposes of education, Fred Inglis identifies five levels of paraphrase:^[2]^[3]
replacing words with synonyms

varying sentence structure

reordering information

turning long sentences into multiple shorter ones (or vice versa)

expressing abstract concepts more concretely.

Paraphrasing with synonyms is considered by some to be an acceptable stage in teaching paraphrase, but it is necessary that it is ultimately combined with techniques for altering sentence structure to avoid the appearance of plagiarism.^[4] Studies of English language students have found that ESL learners tend to rely on using synonyms rather than changing sentence structure when paraphrasing. Participants in a study of some Vietnamese ESL learners expressed that they preferred using synonyms out of a fear that using the wrong sentence structure would lead to the sentence having a different meaning. Na and Mai suggest that ESL teachers should provide varied activities including tasks requiring changes in syntax, and that ESL students should be given source texts to paraphrase whose meaning they are already readily able to understand.^[5]

A paraphrase typically explains or clarifies the text that is being paraphrased. For example, "The signal was red" might be paraphrased as "The train was not allowed to pass because the signal was red". A paraphrase is usually introduced with verbum dicendi—a declaratory expression to signal the transition to the paraphrase. For example, in "The signal was red, that is, the train was not allowed to proceed," the that is signals the paraphrase that follows.

A paraphrase does not need to accompany a direct quotation. The paraphrase typically serves to put the source's statement into perspective or to clarify the context in which it appeared. A paraphrase is typically more detailed than a summary. One should add the source at the end of the sentence: When the light was red, trains could not go (Wikipedia).

A paraphrase may attempt to preserve the essential meaning of the material being paraphrased. Thus, the (intentional or otherwise) reinterpretation of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself qualifies as "original research," and not a paraphrase.

Unlike a metaphrase, which represents a "formal equivalent" of the source, a paraphrase represents a "dynamic equivalent" thereof. While a metaphrase attempts to translate a text literally, a paraphrase conveys the essential thought expressed in a source text—if necessary, at the expense of literality. For details, see dynamic and formal equivalence.

Bruhpedia (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Bruhpedia (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that was also not anywhere close to the meaning of my words. But I’m glad you have access to a dictionary? nableezy - 23:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article is essay-like but it documents the use of a specific term over time in the works of many notable writers so I’m not sure the case for deletion is well made. Mccapra (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point. I'm still not sure about notability, but I think the article's bias issues can be addressed while keeping the factual content. One issue is that, as the article admits in the first sentence, there's already an article concerning the national political movement of the Palestinian people: Palestinian nationalism. Its use in popular discourse appears to be largely confined to this use, which could suggest a redirect to be the best course of action. However, as you point out, this seems to be a specific literary term in certain contexts, and, if we excise the other stuff, this could probably stand on its own. Bruhpedia (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is written as an essay, sourcing is either red or orange, so nothing for reliability. I can't find mention of the term otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh they yellow cus they books linked to on google books, but books published by university presses are reliable. If you’re basing this on a color wheel you should try reading it instead. nableezy - 23:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wild alienation your attitude fosters aside, journals and books aren't ipso facto optimal sources here. They're perfect for, say, scientific topics, but in contentious soft fields like this one, they generally contain arguments. As such, they need to be counterbalanced. Maybe the article could be expanded by more about Israeli views on the topic. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
journals and books aren't ipso facto optimal sources here ... need to be counterbalanced ... by more about Israeli views ?! starship .paint (RUN) 01:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two different points. To the latter, I was trying to say that, on a highly contentious issue, especially one with no objective right answer, you're going to get multiple camps of highly camps of convincing, highly-reputable sources that disagree completely and, in many cases, hate each other. By spotlighting only one of those camps, you can argue convincingly that you have reputable sources, but it doesn't ultimately matter.

To the former, but related, point, journals and books are good, but few of the ones cited strive for objectivity. Good journalism at least tries to be objective, which might be better than cherry-picking sources from only a certain side of the divide. Bruhpedia (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruhpedia Respectfully and sincerely, I don't understand why you keep repeating that the current state of the article is biased. Let's just assume for a second that you are 100% correct. Does that mean we delete it? No, it does not. And you appear to have abandoned your other argument, which is a ground for deletion, notability. So I don't understand why you don't head to the library and find some sources to balance out the bias you perceive. And if you get pushback, you can engage the relevant editing community in the Talk page. But I get the impression that you are unnecessarily spending a lot of energy defending your assertion that there is a severe bias and perhaps losing sight of the fact that that is not the issue in a deletion debate. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, experts writing in the field of their expertise in books published by respected academic publishers are the top quality sources here and everywhere else besides breaking news. nableezy - 02:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Just curious, what do you mean when you say the sourcing is either red or orange? --Orgullomoore (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I use a bot here that idienfies sources used in wikipedia articles as reliable sources or not. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It identifies google books links as yellow because you can link to a self published work by some random schmuck, and that would be unreliable, or a book by the worlds leading authority, and that would be reliable. But it is yellow because the link is google books, not because it is not reliable. nableezy - 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks, I found the script and installed it. And yes, I'm noticing that all links to Google Books are highlighted in yellow now. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly the article could be improved, but that's no reason to delete it. I don't find the notability argument persuasive. --Orgullomoore (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split into Palestinian nationalism and Palestinanism (word) There's already a page for the Palestinian cause, and portions of this are arguably a POV fork of it. There's also some interesting stuff on the literary term "Palestinianism" as used by writers. I think the two could perhaps be divided. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a discussion pertinent here; AfD is for determining notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic is clearly notable. Article could certainly use some improvement, though. Apcynan (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG. If editors have a problem with its structure, they can try to rewrite it. starship .paint (RUN) 01:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the nth time, an essay is an expression of an author's personal views. A wiki article is a careful paraphrase of what relevant RS state or claim about a given topic. The views here are those given in reputable sources, not mine. Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming around on keeping it, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that you can't write a synthetic essay with an implicit thesis. By the contentious nature of the topic, even reputable scholars are highly divided, and by (explicitly) categorizing much of the work of one of the two camps as polemical while quoting the other at length, you're making a pretty strong statement. Nice job writing it though. Bruhpedia (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable term. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously. Per all of the above. A nomination devoid of rationale. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ D'Angelo, Frank J. (October 1979). "The Art of Paraphrase". College Composition and Communication. 30 (3): 255–259. doi:10.2307/356389. JSTOR 356389.
^ Skills for Academic and Career Success. Pearson Higher Education AU. 16 September 2013. p. 104. ISBN 9781486014712.
^ Inglis, Fred (2008). Key Concepts in Education. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780857022998.
^ Ruiter, Rik (2005). Highway to E.S.L. iUniverse. ISBN 9780595342211.
^ Chi Do Na; Nguyen Xuan Nhat Chi Mai (2017). "Paraphrasing in Academic Writing: a Case Study of Vietnamese Learners of English" (PDF). Language Education in Asia.

Keep there's clear scholarly sourcing to satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No notable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#06 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This place is an abadi which are explicitly excluded from WP:GEOLAND (" Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable"), since many of them are not actually villages but instead farms, factories, military bases, pumps, shops etc. In this case Google translate tells me the name means "Thank you Hosseini" though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that. The population is large enough that the place should eventually be converted into a village, though I don't see any evidence that this has happened. FOARP (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of the many articles Carlossuarez46 created on places listed in the Iranian census; later investigation revealed that many of the places weren't communities at all and he didn't fully understand the sources he was interpreting. In light of that, I think it's fair to delete any questionable-looking article he created that doesn't have additional sources. (I'll leave it to people who know the country better to determine what counts as questionable-looking, but this article seems to.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. No prejudice to an immediate relisting at AfD if any editor desires. Daniel (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Beisel[edit]

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

As with the company he cofounded, I am unable to locate anything independently written in reliable sources that address Beisel directly and in detail. There are few db style entries for the listings, but in my view they do not reach the threshold for biographical notability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, United States of America, California, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the reasons presented. Nothing significant found about him. AllNotAll (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep appears to be very notable based on the coverage: [4], [5], [6]. Meets WP:GNG. 76.64.163.41 (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't ping you guys since you don't have accounts, but the suggestion that the person winning scholastic sporting competitions in Canada from 2003-2008 is the same as the subject, who claims to have co-founded and sold a company in 2002, seems... highly dubious, to put it lightly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has been attributed to developing the concept of social commerce since the year that page was created in 2007 [7] 38.104.7.174 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an independent reliable source that address the subject directly or in-detail. We need enough stuff from those sources to actually write an article from them Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald B. Cleaver[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2014. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. PhD in 1993, h-index of 21 (Web of Science) or 23 (Scopus). The university website has a comprehensive list of achievements. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Texas. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be sufficient RS coverage of achievement or career. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citability is insufficiently high and there does not appear to be anything else to indicate notability under WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything that meets NPROF. He seems to be the primary on a handful of publications but hasn't done anything extraordinary in his field from what I can tell. He may get there yet, but it's TOOSOON. Lamona (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. String theory is a high-citation field but I think six publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar should be a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1. I'm not seeing anything else, though. Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as "primary author" in his publications; they appear to use alphabetical author ordering, and he merely happens to be alphabetically first on most of his publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is the corresponding author in these publications. But in my eyes, the individual accomplishment is still diminished by the fact that his coauthors have much higher h-incides and that he has not produced anything with similar impact after leaving the postdoc phase. Also I could not find any source attributing the invention of the MSSM model specifically to him. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: their academic work meets WP:PROF#C1 and WP:ANYBIO#2 // Timothy :: talk 22:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: Since we still don't have a consensus, would you care to elaborate? What is the "widely recognized contribution" for WP:ANYBIO#2, and which sources establish it? Also, what is your reasoning for WP:PROF#C1? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think this is a borderline case. an h-index of 28 and six publications with 100+ citations would generally be enough to just pass NPROF in most fields, but this is a high citation field and in this case all publications are over 20 years old and presumably from his postdoc. He would have probably been above-average at that stage but I think it is hard to argue that he now stands out above all other professors at a comparable career stage which is required to pass the NPROF "average professor test". Is there any achievement / award / recognition that we are missing? His CV claims that he is a fellow of the APS but I could not find any evidence on their website. --hroest 15:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "His CV claims that he is a fellow of the APS": I read it as stating that he is a fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation and a member of the APS. Neither of those two things conveys academic notability, and I can find no evidence that the ASA even has a Fellow membership grade. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, I thought you were arguing for a Keep but your comment reflects the opinion of an editor advocating Deletion. Are you reconsidering your stance? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; I am arguing for evaluating the WP:PROF criteria consistently across articles. My weak keep is based on WP:PROF#C1. This comment was about whether WP:PROF#C3 can be applied. The correct decision is to keep the article if even one of these criteria is deemed to hold and to delete if none do. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I misread his CV and it seems to indicate that he is a member of the APS. In either case, NPROF#3 cannot be argued here and only NPROF#1 is in question. --hroest

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a borderline case regarding NPROF and I'm hopeful a consensus can be reached with a couple more editors participating and reviewing. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I see no indications that he is close to WP:PROF on any of the counts. No major awards, a weak h-factor. I do not think this is borderline.

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Keep Political views of Javier Milei, Delete Political positions of Javier Milei, then move "Views" to "Positions" page title Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of Javier Milei[edit]

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

Two articles about the same sub-topic, Political positions of Javier Milei and Political views of Javier Milei, exist. Which, if any, of them should be replaced by a redirect to which target? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Argentina. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK Political positions of Javier Milei should be deleted and link should be redirected to the original article covering that topic: Political views of Javier Milei. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created the "political views" article after extended discussions a few weeks back, and spent considerable time to reorganize and structure the content in order to make the article in a good shape, and facilitate further improvements. The "political views" article is substantially shorter, and more to the point than this main article. After it was posted and linked in the main article, one editor created the duplicate "political positions", and copied the content from this article as-is without editing, deleted the content of the "political views" article and redirected it to the newly created "political positions" article.

I propose we discuss further improvements in the "political views" article, where the content is organized in a way that allows for easier improvement. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the structure of Political views of Javier Milei, but maybe we should move it back to draftspace for now, and turn Political positions of Javier Milei back into a redirect to Javier Milei#Political positions since they're still identical. Wow (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main discussion we had a few weeks ago is that the main article is an unorganized mess. Without having the structure in place everyone will add content in random sections. This has been pointed out in the Talk page by many, but it requires considerable work to fix this, so it has not been done yet.

The content in the new article "political views" is primarily the same content as the main article contains, but distilled to contain political views only, and just list things factually. It does not make sense to create a duplicate of the content in the main article.

Once we have this in place, anyone is welcome to improve the "political views" article further. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's delete Political positions of Javier Milei (to make way for page move), then rename Political views of Javier Milei to Political positions of Javier Milei, and then either draftify the renamed page or tag the non-neutral content in the renamed page. Also, I agree that the main page is a mess; now is a good time to start trimming it. Wow (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disaster is the openly biased and non-neutral article that the user Pedantic Aristotle intends to impose, as the user Gobonobo said.

The 2 articles should be deleted because they are totally unnecessary, the original article, Javier Milei, already addresses his views and political positions in a very complete, extensive and profound way. Piertosiri (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It is standard practice on Wikipedia to open new articles once the main article grows large, as in this case. I submitted the article for review, and it was approved - not by me -. The serious error was done when @Gobonobo decided to blank the article, create her own version, and redirect the main article to her version. Thats really bad practice, content discussions should happen on the articles Talk page. Bypassing the Wikipedia process by simply replacing articles with their own version is not a good way to improve this encyclopedia.

You are welcome to contribute to the article, if there are things you believe are incorrect or biased, feel free to let us know what that is, and we can work on improving it instead of arguing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is good reason to keep the name as "Political views". Political positions are more suited for political party programs, where you write about their policy implementations.

It would be best to tag or fix non-neutral content, but i still don't know what is being referred to. Its more or less the same content that exists in the main article? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 articles should be deleted because they are totally unnecessary, repetitive and one of the articles, the one that the user Pedantic Aristotle tries to impose, is openly biased and has no neutrality, as the user Gobonobo points out. Javier Milei original article already addresses his opinions and political positions in a very extensive, complete and profound way. Piertosiri (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If there is any content disagreement, this can be discussed in the article talk page. This is a starting point for an article, it is not supposed to be a final version. As I don't know which parts you are believe are biased, it's difficult to comment, except that the content is derived from the main article, and simply lists the factual and sourced information found there.

Feel free to point out any part of this article that is not correctly representing sourced facts. There are many things that can be improved, but as a start, I did not want to diverge the content too far from the original content in the main article. For reference, this is the state of the main article when this article was created;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173745892 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "views", delete "positions", and then move from "views" to "positions" (for consistency, we use "positions" for politicians, as in Category:Political positions of politicians, and "views" for people who are not politicians, as in Category:Political views by person, needless to say, Milei is a politician). The article clearly needs a fork at this point. Still, a fork created as a standalone article (as "views") is a better starting point than an article that simply copypastes a whole section (as "positions"); not to mention that blanking an article and creating a replacement article in its place is definitely rude and should not be allowed to stand (that's the whole reason we have those 2 articles right now). And if this article lists so many positions and forgot a pair... just add them, no need for so much drama. Even a copypaste from main to fork may be acceptable if we move just specific passages, like those of whatever view is currently missing. Cambalachero (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Wow's suggestion, but support any outcome that results in a balanced article.

As it stands, the 'political views' spinoff article violates NPOV by glossing over or failing to mention sourced content from the main article. Several positions that are described in detail in the parent article are conspicuously absent from the 'views' fork, including his rejection of sex education in schools, plans to abolish the Ministry of Women, and support for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. All of these are covered in detail in the 'political positions' section of Milei's article, but go totally unmentioned in the fork. Similarly, climate change is not mentioned even once in the fork, despite the fact that he denies its existence, calling it a socialist lie.[8][9] The brief mentions of dollarization and abortion in the case of rape seem to gloss over the subjects and an there is an in-article note about linking to the COVID controversy rather than any elaboration on the topic.

The imbalance also extends to framing and terminology, with lack of context and soft pedalling both being concerns. There is a stable consensus in the main article to describe Milei as "far-right, ultraconservative, and right-wing libertarian". While these terms are present both in the lead and at the beginning of the political views section of the parent article, their use is avoided in the fork. After the 'views' draft was first rejected at AfC, suggestions were made for improving the balance, but no changes were made. Since the beginning of September, the 'views' article has gone almost completely unchanged with the exception of an attempt by an IP to mention climate change that was reverted.

We're less than 3 weeks out from a presidential run-off here in Argentina. If we're going to have a fork, let's be sure that it deals with the topic fairly and proportionately. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gobonobo, the article Political views of Javier Milei, which the user Pedantic Aristotle intends to impose, is openly biased and has absolutely no neutrality. It does not reflect the original article. And if there is any of the 2 articles that should remain, it is the article Political positions of Javier Milei because it is the most complete, reliable, recognized and neutral. However, I still think that an article of this type for this political figure is totally unnecessary, repetitive and that the 2 articles should be deleted. The original article already addresses in a very complete, extensive and profound way the views and political positions of this Argentine politician. Piertosiri (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:AVOIDYOU Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at AFC here, and the criteria is quite relaxed: if the topic is notable, the article has a decent size (as in, more than just a small stub) and there are no urgent problems such as copyright violations, then it is approved. Cambalachero (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article should be discussed in its talk page. There has been no discussion there even after multiple requests for comments, and we should avoid disruptive editing.

The article is a new article, there is no requirement for it to contain what the main article contains, regardless its based nearly entirely on the main article, but stripped down to contain only factual political views. Thats a good starting point. I can't find any parts of the main article that contains what you mention, that would be suitable for a political positions article in its current form, but if you feel something is missing, feel free to propose changes, and make your argument for them. I would also propose to check guidelines for biographies WP:BLP, I have read them carefully.

This page is however an AfD discussion, and it seems like most wants to delete the POVFORK positions article, and move views to positions. After that we can continue improving Wikipedia, rather than waste everyones time. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "views", delete "positions", and then move from "views" to "positions". Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "views", delete "positions", and then move from "views" to "positions".

The "views" article was initially approved by @Cambalachero, and then the "positions" article was created afterwards to redirect away from the "views" article, as one editor wanted to create their preferred version instead. This split has been highly disruptive and counterproductive, and has effectively stalled further improvements for weeks, which was even stated as the motivation behind these actions due to an upcoming election. The "positions" POVFORK includes a lot of political campaign statements from the opposition, that is unrelated to political views or positions, has in several cases no verifiability, states opinions as facts, omits inline cite, and was added to circumvent the Wikipedia process of discussing content additions, and effectively WP:STONEWALLING. The main article does not have consensus for its content, there has been discussions of a larger cleanup since August/September, but these improvements were delayed due to the protection that was added to the article. The creation of this "views" article was discussed by several editors already at that time, which was supposed to be the first step in the clean-up. It would now be a good time to proceed with improving Wikipedia, rather than continuing to promote and encourage disruptive editing for political gains. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The discussion has run out of steam, and despite analysis of the sources, few editors have commented on them. Therefore, I don't see agreement of what to do, and the debate has been resisted too many times. No prejudice against renomination at a later date. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Police Organization[edit]

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

No indication of being notable with terrible references. Draftified but not updated. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started this page and wrote it.

The organization is “notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” Between 2021 and 2023, this subject has been the subject of:

— Slovenian Press Agency STA, the state-owned and highly reputable press agency, in at least three articles

— BalkanInsight (Serbia etc), a well-known international media in English with award-winning journalists from 7 countries

— Dnevnik, a major daily newspaper, established 1946, in at least three articles, two of which focus on the subject in-depth

— Slovenia Times, the leading Slovenian publication in English

— Večer, a major daily newspaper, established 1945, in a two-page feature article with in-depth coverage of the organization

These sources are referenced in the page. Topjur01 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And here are some more sources from the leading national media, 2021-2023:

-- National TV Slovenia, state owned: TV news 1: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/permisivna-vzgoja-je-vpeljana-v-vse-pore-nasega-zivljenja/665602 TV news 2: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/kdo-stoji-za-mednarodno-policijsko-organizacijo-ipo-ki-je-pri-nas-pomagala-po-poplavah/679297

-- Delo, the most read national daily newspaper since 1945: Article 1: https://www.delo.si/tag/pomoc-za-prizadete/ Article 2: https://www.delo.si/nedelo/odziv-ljudi-je-fantasticen/

-- 24ur, the most read news portal in the country: Article 1: https://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/pomoc-rdeci-kriz.html

-- BIRN (Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, Serbia etc): https://birn.rs/mreza-parapolicijskih-organizacija-pravoslavni-templari-i-veze-sa-sns-om/

Topjur01 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the previous two comments, I listed 10 reliable media sources from Slovenia and 2 based in Serbia, and here are two in Montenegro:

The National TV Radio_and_Television_of_Montenegro occasionally hosta guests who represent the organization, see for example (this TV show is on Youtube but it is from the national tv: https:// (youtube) /mPxMhKQiLHk?si=3uvAEw4nQur5TvuJ&t=852 A major news website published a news item about the organization and its event: https://primorski.me/info/odrzano-predavanje-uloga-i-znacaj-mladih-u-kreiranju-bezbjednijeg-drustva/

For other countries, news items are in its language and hard to detect, but I guess 10+ sources from three countries should suffice. Topjur01 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that nobody has expressed their opinion to keep or delete. I am randomly pinging several editors whom I do not know and who have previously voted on other organizations' AfDs and kindly ask you to help reach a consensus, either to delete or keep. User:A._B. @A. B.:, User:Chocmilk03 @Chocmilk03:, User:Gadfium @Gadfium:, User:Bookworm857158367 @Bookworm857158367:, User:Superb_Owl @Superb Owl: (I hope you do not mind and I hope I am doing this correctly). Thank you. Topjur01 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is well outside my areas of interest or knowledge, so I decline to offer an opinion.-gadfium 02:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also outside of my interest area and knowledge - did a cursory search but had trouble finding English-language sources on the topic Superb Owl (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I can't help on this.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears notable and well referenced. There is no good reason to delete this particular article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bookworm857158367: How goes it? Notable in what way exactly? If you could give me a definition of why its notable I might withdrawn. I think there references are particularly poor. I've not seen a single one that tells me there is a level of significance that makes it notable. We will go through the references, but at the moment its more a listing than an article. scope_creep^Talk 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a well known and highly notable organization in Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro and some other countries. The fact that it is not notable in English speaking countries or that it is not referenced in English sources is irrelevant. Danp2006 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA and probably has a WP:COI since this is the only article they have worked on. scope_creep^Talk 23:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment This is a new private company that is no more notable than any other private company. To say it is highly notable when its only been in existance for 5 years is disengenous and lacks credibility, particularly as its is small private company. I will go through the references shortly. scope_creep^Talk 23:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. From what I could gather, sources seem to be mainly press releases, editorials, primary sources, or passing mentions. Wozal (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but these are 10+ articles in countries' leading media, none of them is a press release or a passing mention. At least 5 articles in 5 different media are a detailed examination of the organization. Some are critical (in daily Dnevnik or BalkanInsight) and others are favoulable (in daily Večer). In addition to 10+ detailed articles in credible media there may be some press releases, editorials, primary sources or passing mentions, but these additional documents do not make the organization non-notable. My guess is you did not read the articles. TTopjur01 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep'''. It clearly passes notability in at least some countries. RTVSLO, Dnevnik, Delo, Večer, BalkanInsight are all credible media in South Eastern Europe. Tiberius1978 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll examine the first two reference blocks tommorrow. Saying is credible doesn't cut it. scope_creep^Talk 22:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the references then since late. I'll do the first block since its 20 references:

Ref 1 [10] This is a company registration website similar to companies house in the Uk. Its non-rs. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 2 [11] Lists the organisation but is passing. Proves it exists. That fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 [12] States its a non-profit.
Ref 4 [13] 404 Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 5 [14] News report of a member receiving a certificate from the company. Its WP:PRIMARY andf fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 6 Non-rs
Ref 7 [15] This is press-release. An appointment. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 8 [16] A report on the IPO attending a conference, one of their own member. It fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 9 [17] Another appointment. Trivial coverage. It fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 10 [18] Change of leadership. Trivial coverage. It fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 11 [19] Company blog. This a WP:SPS source and is not reliable. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 12 [20] This the front of the Slovenia organisation. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 13 [21] This is another front page of the website in Bosnia. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 14 [22] A profile. Its not indepth failing WP:SIRS.
Ref 15 [23] This the Italian version website. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 16 [24] Listing article for the European organisation. A directory entry. It is non-rs.
Ref 17 [25] University of Rome newspaper reporting on the IPO conference.
Ref 18 [26] This an address by the IPO member. It is not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 19 [27] The text is lifted wholesale from the company website. It is mostly WP:PRIMARY and is PR.
Ref 20 Non-RS.

Of the first 20 references, 19 are unsuitable to prove notabilty and one is a report on the conference. Its probably WP:PRIMARY. There is nothing in this first that proves the organisation is notable. Instead it is a whole a primary, links to their offices in different countries, but not enought to prove notability. Its a large international organisation but currently it still fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the rest of the refs above tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 23:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but several editors have said which are the well-known credible daiy newspapers and state-controlled national media, and you did not check these but you checked others. Topjur01 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references then since it is late. I'll do the ones that show that the organization has been adequately covered by independent credible sources:

Ref 23 [28] A detailed feature article about the organization, critical, published in a reputable international source BIRN BalkanInsight, based in Serbia.
Ref 28 [29] Interview with the organization's head in Montenegro in a national news portal.
Ref 30 [30] A news item about the organization's activity in a national news portal in Montenegro.
Ref 31 [31] An interview with an international expert who spoke at the organization's large international event, in Večer, a large national newspaper in Slovenia.
Ref 32 [32] A feature article about the orgization's large conference in a state-owned Slovenian Radio and Television broadcaster, the Radiotelevizija Slovenija. The same news appeared on TV, Radio, and Internet site of the national TV+Radio.
Ref 33 [33] An interview in Siol, with an international expert who spoke at the organization's large international event. Siol is one of the two largest news portals in Slovenia.
Ref 37 [34] A feature article about the orgization in one of the leading and reputable national newspapers, Večer, the newspaper being pubished since 1045 and the journalist is an award winning journalist with a PhD.
Ref 38 [35] A state-controlled national Slovenian Press Agency news item about the organization's activity. These news were re-published by dozens of radio stations, media, and portals.
Ref 39 [36] A state-controlled national Slovenian Press Agency news item about the organization's activity. These news were re-published by dozens of radio stations, media, and portals.
Ref 40 [37] The leading news portal in English in Slovenia, The Slovenia Times. It is a translated article by the Slovenian Press Agency, about the organization's activity.
Ref 41 [38] A detailed feature article about the organization, critical, published in a reputable daily newspaper Dnevnik in Slovenia.

This should suffice. Topjur01 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Topjur01: You've made a few mistakes here, e.g. interview with anybody in the organisation fails WP:ORGIND. I'm not sure your know how to interpret WP:NCORP. NCORP is very strict on these kind of things. So Ref 28 is failing WP:ORGIND. I will need go through these later scope_creep^Talk 09:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good attempt though. Kudos for that. If your staying then attending Afd would be excellent. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused by the allegation that this was written by a SPA? The creator of the current article has been around for more than a decade. What's missing from the article history here? -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT - Among the assembled sources, I see two ([39] Dnevnik, [40] RTV) that clearly provide independent, significant coverage of the organization, as opposed to either a) an interview with a representative b) descriptions of an event organized by them without description of the organization c) brief mention in passing regarding disaster relief coverage d) articles positively gushing about their disaster relief efforts that look more like PR than investigative journalism. The problem is that while the article as written follows the PR line that this is a storied scholarship and disaster relief organization, the Dnevnik and RTV pieces instead describes it as an organization that engages in false advertising regarding its relationship to the police, in addition to having ties to private security companies and far-right parties. RS like Balkan Insight and Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, which have been linked in this discussion, second this characterization, emphasizing the organization's ties to far-right parties when mentioning it in passing. I don't think the assembled coverage here meets ORGCRITE, although it comes close; still if additional coverage exists, it seems likely that the article would need to be completely rewritten to follow the weight of independent sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Rosguill and, further above, scope_creep regarding the quality of the proposed sourcing. While there's large numbers of potential references, I don't believe they constitute the significant coverage in independent sources required for our inclusion policies. Daniel (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Phoenix FC–Western United FC rivalry[edit]

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

Not notable. The mere fact that two teams play each other does not constitute a rivalry. Only one of the sources provided on the page actually calls it a rivalry, and that source appears to be a blog as opposed to a reputable source. Alza08 (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a 'rivalry' - other sources refer to it as such, see e.g. this - but there is no significant coverage of the rivalry that I can see. It's probably not a notable one, given other sources such as this talk about games between the clubs without referring to a rivalry. Giant Snowman 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with GiantSnowman's summary. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Relationship between the clubs is unusual in that Western Utd appear to have signed a lot of Wellington's players (maybe using expansion team rules to get them more easily? Not sure) and that caused annoyance between fans. But that situation can be mentioned briefly on the teams' pages, very unlikely to be something that will endure, no mutual local interest and does not have significant coverage as a result (the Stuff link above specifically states "Western started out as the Phoenix’s bitter rivals after poaching coach Mark Rudan, and signing long-serving captain Andrew Durante, Max Burgess and Filip Kurto for their inaugural season in 2019-20. But that rivalry was short-lived as Rudan was sacked at the end of last season and now coaches Western Sydney Wanderers, and none of those three players play for them any more either"). Crowsus (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2008 Polish Air Force C-295 Mirosławiec crash. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Andrzejewski[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:SINGLEEVENT notable only for one event, as a non-notable victim of a plane crash, zero sourcing after 15 years. Whatever content is useful should be placed at 2008 Polish Air Force C-295 Mirosławiec crash. No sources in translated versions that establish notability beyond being a crash victim. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be expanded with the information in the corresponding article in the Polish Wikipedia at pl:Andrzej Andrzejewski (pilot). When searching online, consider including the word pilot or the person's military rank to avoid confusion with the actor of the same name. A general is usually notable, and some of the claims in the existing article and its counterparts in other languages seem to indicate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What guideline are you using that says "generals are usually notable" because I couldn't find any. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to expand - our article is pretty much the same as the pl wiki one. Notability of generals may be related to retired WP:NSOLDIER guideline, although rule of thumb it is something I tend to support to. That said, see below - I think this is the exception even for me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Mirosławiec crash. I concur that all notability he has is due to this event. His promotion to general was posthumous. Ps. Pl wiki is pretty inclusionist for milhist topics and I am not touching this there, I was told one time that even colonels are notable there. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and it is very rare for a general to die in the line of duty. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't a general when he died. How can you say he meets GNG when literally none of the sources work? Surely you aren't going off your talk page opinion about generals being "inherently notable" instead of our proper wiki guidelines? Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the article say he was promoted to brigadier-general in 2006? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you are right, pl wiki has this claim although no footnote. It would be nice to know what he was promoted for (just steadily working?). Nothing in his career seems spectacular, just... solid. I looked at his pl wiki awards and likewise, they seem to be... solid. Now, I am not an expert in this field, so I am sticking to weak redirect due to the fact that what I see still is ONEEVENT media coverage + promotions/awards as expected from someone having pretty succesfull career in their field, yet not one that is obviously notability-granting. Do ping me if you reply with a counterargument, which I'll be happy to consider. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2008 Polish Air Force C-295 Mirosławiec crash. All the sources I can find only have coverage in the context of the crash. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the plane crash article, as noted above. I think it's a useful enough search term that there is a case to find an outcome other than deletion here, but concur that there isn't anything clearly in the way of ongoing/lasting coverage and WP:1E seems to fit. Various statements remain uncited, but a redirect at least preserves the article if there is viable scope for expansion in future. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Okello-Obura[edit]

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

The sources therein does not confer notability; they're mostly primary sources and does not give significant coverage to the subject. I do not think that the subject meet the notability criteria for academics either. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Uganda. Reading Beans (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears this article was created and avoided AfC. It would not have passed normal AfC, not close to NPROF.

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear how any criteria of academic notability are met. A few papers with 3 digits citations but not enough to claim criterium 1 is met https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Constant+Okello-Obura&btnG=

JamesKH76 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Novem Linguae (talk · contribs) as "Mass deletion of pages added by RobertoSanchez1990. WP:G5 sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser. One of the articles currently at AFD looks like it's probably a hoax, so mass deletion rather than spending a bunch of time chasing down hoaxes seems warranted. I am keeping one page that had substantial edits from other users." (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 J.League & North American Cup[edit]

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

Contested draftification. As the AFC reviewer said, "None of the sources indicate that Miami and Fukuoka will play each other on the stated date." Possible hoax. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this is scheduled or expected to take place. Pure WP:CRYSTAL or a hoax. Sounder Bruce 03:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5- article creator blocked as sock. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to San Bernardino train disaster. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 7551[edit]

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

This article covers the train engine involved in the San Bernardino train disaster, duplicating some of that article's material while only adding some unencyclopedic information on an otherwise standard train engine. Subject is not inherently notable and what notability exists is in the context of a subject already covered in the disaster article. I would also be content with a merge to redirect. Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and California. Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would recommend keeping it. Because, it wasn't just involved in a wreck. It was actually the first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, which is what makes the locomotive notable for.

27.33.233.138 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If it is first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, (which is what makes the locomotive notable for), then there's no reason to delete the article. 27.33.233.138 (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides its completely new y'know 27.33.233.138 (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither involvement in a wreck nor being the first locomotive in a specific paint scheme come anywhere close to notability. 27.33.233.138, you need to stop creating articles about individual locomotives. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Pi.1415926535. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, I am agreeing with the editors about the subject. As Pbritti stated, the article wasn't completely encyclopedic such as using cardinals as in the text May 12th, 1989 and that context of the mentioned article already exists in another. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 16:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cautioned the author that this locomotive wasn't notable when I reviewed the draft a month ago, and their response was to essentially REFBOMB with a ton of sources that only have passing mentions. Essentially, if it came up at all in google books, it went in as a ref. This makes the article appear notable from a superficial glance (presumably how it got past an AfC reviewer), but closer inspection reveals this is not the case. "It was the first locomotive to have this new paint scheme" is completely irrelevant and means nothing for Wikipedia notability. I echo Pi's comments - some of the preserved steam locomotive articles they create have been fine, and I accepted one myself, but diesels are much less likely to be individually notable outside their class. Nobody is denying the locomotive existed, but it completely fails notability guidelines. Being present in an accident doesn't make the locomotive notable, because notability is not inherited. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EMD SD45R#Accidents and incidents, where the accident involving this locomotive is mentioned, and selectively merge content to provide more detail on the accident. I doubt that the individual locomotive is notable based on the sources I can see (I frankly don't see WP:SIGCOV of the locomotive itself from multiple independent RS), but I do think that redirecting to the place where it's mentioned on-wiki would be reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge-to-redirect is the ultimate outcome, I agree with RTH that this is the best target. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino train disaster would be a better redirect target. I've just removed that section from the EMD SD45R article - just like with automobiles, incidents that happen to involve individual locomotives are generally not relevant to the class. (Unless the incidents were specifically related to the class, like EMD SDP40F#Derailments, but that's not the case here.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would also work for me as a redirect/merge target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt so there can be no manipulative attempts at resurrection. TarnishedPath^talk 08:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley B. Glass[edit]

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

This has been tagged as relying on only a single source since 2011. A quick search on google scholar and google books shows that the biography cited here is more or less the only source that discusses Glass in detail, with a handful of later works referencing the biography. In my opinion, this clearly fails notability. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, China, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Morgan, Robert (2000). Nelson's Complete Book of Stories, Illustrations & Quotes. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. p. 70. ISBN 0-7852-4479-4. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The revival spread through the seminary, the schools, the hospital, and the area churches. Perhaps the deepest impact was made on Culpepper's friend, Wiley B. Glass, a much respected missionary. As Glass sat in the meetings, a man's face came before him and God seemed to be asking him about his attitude toward that man. Glass had hated the man for many years, and suddenly the Holy Spirit brought him under deep conviction."
2. Martin, Catherine (2008). Set My Heart on Fire: Experience the Power of the Holy Spirit. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-0-7369-2056-8. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "One day while in a revival meeting, a respected missionary in China, Wiley B. Glass ran to his missionary friend C.L. Culpepper and, in great anguish, asked his friend to pray for him. Both men went to their knees, but Glass pale as death and groaning in his anxiety, was unable to express his agony in words. Culpepper prayed with him, and for him, several times during that day and into the next. Finally, on the evening of the second day, Glass came running to Culpepper and threw his arms around him."
3. Lian, Xi (2010). Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-300-12339-5. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "In general, the revivals in Shandong were a spontaneous rural movement that Wiley B. Glass, who taught at a Baptist seminary in Huangxian in northeastern Shandong, compared to a "cattle stampede." Yet Glass also found it to be a genuinely "indigenous" Christianity in contrast to the liberal religion envisioned by the Shanghai-based leaders of the NCC (which he dubbed "a type of foreign-inspired modernism that the Chinese did not readily accept").""
4. Hockin, Katharine B. (January 1980). "Book Review: Higher Ground: Biography of Wiley B. Glass, Missionary to China". International Bulletin of Mission Research. 4 (1). doi:10.1177/239693938000400114.
  The review notes: "In Higher Ground, Eloise Glass Cauthen presents the story of her missionary father, Wiley B. Glass, who served the Southern Baptist Mission in China for over forty years, ending his work there with the Japanese occupation of Hwanghsien in Shantung. Because of these circumstances his extensive diaries and all records were lost. When Mrs. Cauthen set out to write her father's life story she was dependent on her notes of conversations with her father, who lived into his nineties, clear of mind and always willing to recall details of past events and experiences. Mrs. Cauthen chose to use an autobiographical style to present her tribute to her great missionary father. This reviewer would have preferred a more straightforward narrative treatment instead of the use of the first person for the parental tale."
5. "Wiley Glass Dies; Former Missionary". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 1967-11-16. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  There is a separate death notice in the same newspaper here. The obituary notes: "A missionary to China for 42 years, Dr. Glass worked in Shantung province throughout his overseas career. He taught in the North China Baptist Theological Seminary, Hwanghsien, 34 years and served as its principal for eighth years. Interned by the Japanese early in World War II, he was repatriated to the States in 1943. He retired in 1945. A native of Franklin County, Tex., Dr. Glass graduated from Baylor University, Waco, with a B.A. degree and from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky., with a Master of Theology degree. He was awarded the honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by Baylor University in 1919."
6. "Dr Wiley B Glass Honored For 40 Years as Missionary". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 1954-08-21. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "the man who with his wife brought up five children in China, where Dr. Glass served as a theological teacher. Although he will be 80 Sept. 4. Dr. Glass expects to continue working, using as his motto three verses (5-8) from the second chapter of Philippians. "Let the mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus ...""
7. "Dr. W. B. Glass to Celebrate 80th Birthday With Reunion". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 1954-08-01. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Dr. and Mrs. Glass were missionaries in North China more than 40 years for the Southern Baptist Convention. They had lived in Fort Worth since their return 10 years ago from a Japanese internment camp in China. They have spoken throughout the South in interest of foreign missions."
8. "Chinese Missionary To Visit In Eagle Rock". The Daily Review. 1937-04-20. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "She was married to Mr. Gless after starting her mission work in China where Mr. Glass is also doing church work."
9. "Dr. Wiley B. Glass". Chattanooga Daily Times. 1945-08-08. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "A native of Texas, Dr. Glass was interned by the Japanese before his return to the States. He is a graduate of Baylor University and holds the Th.M. degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He served as president of the Baptist Theological Seminary at Hwanghsien, China, from 1924 to 1931."
10. "Arkansan and Two Texans Aboard Jap Vessell Teia Maru". The Times. 1943-10-15. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Wiley B. Glass and Jessie Pettigrew Glass, Mt. Pleasant, Texas, and Alice Barlow, Hope, Ark., are among the 1,236 American nationals aboard the Japanese ship Teia Maru to be exchanged at Mormugao, Portuguese India, for Japanese nationals from this country, according to an United Press story."
11. "School of Missions Planned By Baptist Churches of Area". The Daily Iberian. 1949-09-01. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Tuesday night's speaker will be the Rev. Wiley B. Glass, who served many years as a missionary to China, having been appointed to that country in 1903. For several years he did evangelistic work in Laichow and was then transferred to teach in the seminary at Hwangshien. In 1916 he organized a church in Lungkow, China. He is now retired, living in this country."
12. "Ex-Baylor Man Makes Record In Missionary Work". Waco Tribune-Herald. 1936-06-28. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "He graduated from Baylor in 1901, spent a few years in seminary study, and then sailed for China—an adventurous undertaking some 30 years ago. He has been rewarded with great success as a Christian missionary, though, ... He has sent two daughters and a son back to finish Baylor and other American schools."
13. "China Missionary Addresses Baptist Congregation Here". Tyler Morning Telegraph. 1948-12-28. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The pioneer missionary and Mrs. Glass were interned in a Jap concentration camp in 1942. Since their release from the camp in 1945, they have been making their home in Fort Worth. Although retired because of age, Dr. Glass stated he hope to be able to go back to China for further missionary work."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wiley B. Glass to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm surprised you were able to find all of those sources. In that case, withdrawn, and if you have the time it's be great if you'd improve the article with those sources. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict)-- The accusation of WP:OR is clearly wrong since one of the sources is clearly a published biography. The leader of a revival is certainly likely to be notable. The fact that it is by his daughter might imply COI in that, but most missionary biographies are likely to be biased, since they tend to be eulogistic. Despite that, it is clear he was an important missionary. The article may be less than perfect, but that is not uncommon. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aidé Mendiola[edit]

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

The subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, has played for her respective national team since 2021. I am unable to find the in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhansaya Koziyeva[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Kazakhstan women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bulgaria at the 1936 Winter Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Racho Zhekov[edit]

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

WP:NOLYMPICS competing alone is not sufficient, this person did not medal. did a WP:BEFORE and cannot find any additional references for notability besides the competition record. lizthegrey (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and Bulgaria. lizthegrey (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that for Olympians who attended one Game, and participated in one event, and did not medal, and for whom there's not enough information to sustain an independent article, their name be a redirect to the article on that event at that Game (in this case, Cross-country skiing at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Men's 4 × 10 kilometre relay). DS (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 65.200.160.160 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bulgaria at the 1936 Winter Olympics, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. He competed at more than one event but only one Olympic games so that seems like the better WP:ATD. Suonii180 (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a lack of information about the athlete, with no additional sources. Svartner (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Malayalam films of 1981. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasam[edit]

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

Article created in 2014 with three meh sources. Film doesn't seem to pass WP:NFILM, though sources may be available in a different language. There's a contested PROD earlier this month. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 1981, where the film is mentioned, and add there 1, 2 or all of the 3 sources that are currently mentioned, for verification.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Herm. An editor says they have added content to the target article but this closure will ensure it's placed there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tenants of Herm[edit]

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

How is this poorly referernced list notable either in light of WP:GNG or WP:NLIST? We don't have an article about tenants of Herm. Being a tenant does not usually make one notable, unless this is a significant historical title which currently the article does not suggest is the case. Not sure if merging this to Herm makes sense but it could be considered a WP:ATD. I'll also translate a comment from ongoing pl wiki deletion discussion which seems quite well made: "The island is an integral part of one of the parishes (municipalities) of Guernsey and belongs entirely to the central authorities of the island (until 1949 it was owned by the Crown). The island is leased for a specified period of time (with the possibility of extension), and tenants sometimes sublet it further. This is no different from any other lease of state land in any country in the world - after all, we are talking about the lease of only approximately 150-200 ha, and there are many such areas in the world that have been leased for a long time (including islands). The list of people leasing given areas is not encyclopedic." (by User:Aotearoa). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Tenant of Herm" is not an official (or unofficial) title, as far as I can tell, just a resident of the place. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Herm. Editors may not know that Herm is a small island and there's just one tenant at a time. I see that some of the listed tenants are in the article already, but the citation will be useful over there and it should be possible to cite the other tenants also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have put important items into the Herm page. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Namadingo[edit]

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

The sources available (as seen online) does not scratch the general notability guidelines. As seen in the sources available on the entry, it is filled with "he said..." which makes them non-independent. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Reading Beans (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I bet there is more about him out there to be found, but this version does not show notability. Llajwa (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Nakibuuka[edit]

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

The subject is a Ugandan women's footballer who has appeared for her respective national team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The best sources I found were 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uganda. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Sports 4[edit]

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

Notability of the article content is sparse and questionable with regards to its merits of being a sole article. I would opt to delete and merge the contents with either TNT Sports (United Kingdom) or ESPN in the United Kingdom as these articles would be more suitable for this content. S. Salim (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S. Salim (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still a well-active channel, and its past WP:N is not lost at all despite going from its own entity as ESPN to a suite channel with TNT. The sourcing is beyond adequate. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Channel has a standalone, GNG-meeting history before being rolled into TNT Sports. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the backstory to this channel that makes this article notable although there is an argument to rename it as ESPN UK (or similar). Rillington (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a separate, independently notable channel. The fact that it's now been rebranded into the TNT Sports family doesn't take away from the historic notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Recently located sources satisfy the AFD nominator so I'm going to close this as Keep. Thank you to everyone who did legwork to locate sources mentioning or covering this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Word Up! (magazine)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable beyond the famous mention by The Notorious B.I.G. Article (as Word Up (magazine)) was previously deleted in 2007 on the same grounds, and created around the same time under this name. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination not seem to full fill the General Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O chawal (talk • contribs) 21:22, November 11, 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep found some books online for sale on amazon & ebay — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @CAJaganaddamRJY could you link these books, preferably from Google Books or elsewhere, so we can see if they're any good as sources? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It does have some articles that link to it. It could use some expanding. Somewhat meets notability standards. Ktkvtsh (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody noticed in 2007 that we had two articles on the same subject. This one even pre-dates the prior AFD discussion. DGG was right 16 years ago. That all we have in 16 years is an article sourced to YouTube and some song lyrics, actually confirms what Ashley 2008, p. 94 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAshley2008 (help) implies: these magazines haven't really been recorded by history. I can certainly find sources, including that one and Forman 2002 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFForman2002 (help), for an article on Hip-hop magazines (AFD discussion), but nothing in-depth about this specific subject. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ashley, Jennifer (2008). "Fanzines". In Stanley, Tarshia L. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Hip Hop Literature. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9780313343902.
- Forman, Murray (2002). "Hip-Hop Media". The 'Hood Comes First: Race, Space, and Place in Rap and Hip-Hop. Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 9780819563972.
Can anyone see what these books have to say on the subject?
- Magazines for Libraries by Bill Katz and Linda Sternberg Katz, 1997. Supposedly says something on page 97, based on the Google Books snippet.
- Encyclopedia of Rap and Hip-Hop Culture by Yvonne Bynoe, 2005. Supposedly says something on page 409, based on the index preview in Amazon.
I did find this article about photographer Ernie Paniccioli's work on the magazine. I'd be curious if Cornell could point us toward more information on the magazine itself, since they hold the Ernie Paniccioli Photo Archive.
Does a Sotheby's catalog note count toward anything? At least it's evidence of some enduring cultural significance. Zagalejo (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone in the 2020s still believes that Google Books is uniform, this is yet another counterexample. I'll take the Bynoe encyclopaedia, which I had to put a full title in to locate, as 1 source. It's good for some of the basics, although it's pretty short and gets on to the next entry ("WORLD CLASS WRECKIN' CRU") after only a few sentences. We couldn't really make a whole article from it on its own. This might be a 1 good source and lots of little one-fact detail sources situation, although I'd personally prefer something a little less superficial than the Bynoe entry, which doesn't even say who the editor was and stuff like that. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Suprised no one has come across these sources:
- "Teenagers have new magazine, 'Word Up'". New York Amsterdam News. (August 8, 1987).
- Bessman, Jim. (January 5, 1991). "The word on new vid magazine 'Word Up'. Billboard.
- Meara, Paul (August 10, 2023). "Notorious B.I.G. Estate To Relaunch Storied ‘Word Up!’ Magazine". Black Entertainment Television.
This is a hell of a lot better than what most periodicals get. It is also used as a source in many scholarly books and, of course, in Wikipedia, which demonstrates notability outside of direct coverage per WP:NPERIODICAL. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't be. They have titles "Preview unavailable" and "Document Preview Unavailable" in my part of the planet. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've just added some citations and cleaned the article up a little bit. I'm surprised they hadn't been linked yet -- there was just a bunch of coverage of the magazine a few months ago because the BIG estate and Budweiser put out two special editions. I think it gets over the WP:GNG hump. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this'll do for sure. Thank you all for finding this coverage; would've been shocked if nothing existed for this. Easily withdrawn as is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm not sure how "Less Resources" is an argument to Keep an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snap table[edit]

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

The Snap Table seems to be a trademark of a particular tool, made by Swenson. I failed to find any mention of a generic use of the term in roofing. The particular tool does not seem to be notable, I have failed to locate any independent sources. Викидим (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Викидим (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing significant there for the article to stay at main space and article is entirely unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O chawal (talk • contribs) 21:26, November 11, 2023 (UTC)

Weak Keep Less Resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only non-commercial reference to the term I was able to find is a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, which has nothing to do with the roofing tool. Owen× ☎ 14:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. after rellevant sources tracked down and added to the article (thank you!). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Boon[edit]

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

Zero relevant Google News hits for "Mike Boon" comedian; no independent reliable sources in the article since its creation in 2006. BD2412 T 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. BD2412 T 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Comment~~: This NZ Herald article gives him one tick for significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, I'd say, although it's odd that it didn't come up in the Google News search results. It's the only source I've found on an initial search of NZ databases, and on its own wouldn't be enough to meet WP:GNG. I'll have another look later and see if I can find anything else substantive. Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to keep. He (just) meets WP:GNG. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This comes up in .nz sources [41], I think that's good for notability. There are a few NZ Herald articles about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: thanks for finding that Timaru Courier article. Could you link any other NZ Herald articles? Aside from the one I mentioned, the only other article I could find was "Comedy for kids proves a Boon", but that reads as an advert to me. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same one you linked above and the "comedy" one you referenced here, that's all I had. Oaktree b (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, United Kingdom, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've tracked down a few NZ reviews of Boon - theatreview: Ageless storytelling; Silly fun for kids; dry humour for adults; and in Threadnz.com: MR BOON SAVES CHRISTMAS. ResonantDis_tortion 07:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With two feature articles in newspapers (which are twelve years apart), and a number of secondary reviews of his shows, there should be sufficient to presume notability. I have added the above references to the article. ResonantDis_tortion 22:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. It's not sufficient to say you did a Google search or write "Passes GNG". If you want this article to be Kept, you need to present specific sources that other editors can examine and verify. The fact that editors who have a lot of AFD experience are still relying on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is disappointing.

Should anyone want to work on a draft article, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Rojas (Chilean footballer)[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Largely unsourced article on footballer with no evidence of notability. No sources found in my own search to satisfy WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: some sourcing has been mentioned. Mbdfar (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No sources have been presented. It's no good saying they exist. Giant Snowman 12:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Then I would consider changing your wording from "found" so you don't get erroneously pinged. Mbdfar (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search showed several articles on reliable news media. I'm on the phone so I can't link them right now, but searching "Alfredo Rojas" "San Marcos de Arica" provides articles from La Tribuna, a newspaper from Biobío, and Soychile.cl, of El Mercurio, among many others, which in my opinion suffice to assert notability. Bedivere (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Bedivere. Extensive pro career in professional Chilean football with may sources. Artilce needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not sufficient to simply do a Google search (or worse yet to rely on someone else's Google search) and base a claim of notability on seeing a number of hits. We actually need to review the sources, and when I did, I found them wanting. A La Tribuna article was the best source I could find which is a routine transfer announcement that includes more than just routine coverage of his career. This is not enough by itself to show compliance with the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Someone needs to actually write and document this before it goes up on Wikipedia. As it is, it shouldn't be up. Llajwa (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Baur[edit]

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

The Wall Street Journal profile of the businessman, while nifty, is the only source on this subject that is acceptable, meaning that they fall below the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no other sources other than the Wall Street Journal source stated above that offers significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's apparently some that cover a different businessman of the same name, which isn't him. Tails Wx 02:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A number of the citation links seem to be dead. But it seems like if there is a notable subject here, it may be the company, not its co-founder. Llajwa (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Loverdos[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only sources referenced in the article are databases and do not address the subject in-depth. BEFORE search shows no American nor Greek-language sources found. Tails Wx 00:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Greece. Tails Wx 00:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone who just competed once in the Olympic Games; there is nothing more on him. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Llajwa (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcar Independent Racing League[edit]

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

Little independent coverage outside Wikipedia itself. Two local news coverage sources with single sentence mentions and a self-published book but appears to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. lizthegrey (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Motorsport, and United States of America. lizthegrey (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify - with no citations outside of the organization's own website, the article does not even make a claim for notability. Llajwa (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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