< October 27	October 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ławki, Giżycko County. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ławki PGR[edit]

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

People familiar with Poland and the Polish language will recognise that "PGR" is the initials for Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne, or state agricultural farm. This is therefore just a farm. There is no listing for Ławki PGR in the sources.

The location is just across the lake from the village of Ławki, Giżycko County that this is obviously just part of. I don't think redirecting Ławki PGR to Ławki makes much sense, not least because Ławki literally means "benches", but it's still better than keeping this article around - however, I prefer straight-forward deletion.

This article was mass-created by the bot Kotbot, operated by retired user Kotniski. In excess of 40,000 other articles were created in the same way. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two places with the name Ławki (wieś and osada) and one called Ławki Małe (przysiółek wsi) which is part of Ławki (wieś). The Polish article was moved to "Ławki (osada)" but I think this is different, it seems to be in the same area as Ławki Małe, probably part of it. Peter James (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean there’s one place called Ławki, but TERYT divides it up into a couple of different units. This is something that happens across Poland, you even see listings for “[Place name] A” and “[Place name] B” when in reality there is only one community called “[Place name]”.

At any rate, there is no place called Ławki PGR in any of the sources. FOARP (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is an recognised settlement; a map search finds it near Ławki Małe but that's just an unofficial hamlet in the village of Ławki. The other Ławki (osada) seems to be a manor house and estate with a few buildings on the heritage register; it's unclear whether this was once the state agricultural farm. Peter James (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge and redirect to Ławki, Giżycko County. It does have a pl:osada (hamlet) status in TERYT. That said, realistically, this was just a PGR (state farm) located near the village. Through some administrative accident it got a separate TERYT entry, but it's likely a WP:NOPAGE case. The village article should mention there was such a PGR nearby, maybe give coordinates and mention it has its own TERYT number - and that's realistically all the info that is out there and that can ever be here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus - I don't think the TERYT database can support a claim that Ławki had a state farm? I assume you're referring to the osada listed at Ławki (search SIMC ID no. 0767658 here) - but this is called "Ławki", not "Ławki PGR". I don't doubt there was a PGR at this site, but no source actually says that. FOARP (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP True. Here is a reliable source that confirms such an entity existed (1969 so no wiki error repetition chance). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly happy to mention that at the main page for Ławki. FOARP (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unlike the others, this one appears to need more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - The article for Ławki now states that it had a PGR using the source (which appears to have been someone's memoirs), OK with a redirect? FOARP (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I am ok with anything that is not deletion, I guess... @Stok if you care to comment. I have hard time imagining most PGRs are notable in the realistic sense of that concept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ławki, Giżycko County as an AtD per Piotrus cmts above. // Timothy :: talk 01:08, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NextView Ventures[edit]

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

While the number of mentions is quite extensive, unfortunately I cannot identify any that would help meet the primary inclusion criteria for organisations and companies. Most of them are essentially namechecks in terms of depth of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: references 1 (WSJ) and 25 (Boston Globe) are reliable and non-trivial, so WP:SIGCOV is met. This makes two independent, reliable, secondary sources. However, most of those pieces are fluff so I wouldn't be devastated by a delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link to WSJ article via The Wikipedia Library/ProQuest: https://www-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/2072224429. I'd agree on the fluff and agree to disagree on IND for this one and DEPTH on the other, but will reserve soliciting comments from RSN. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Alpha3031 here. ~~Wcquidditch~~WeirdNAnnoyed says the articles are "reliable and non-trivial" so SIGCOV is met and then goes on to say that the articles are "independent". Perhaps ~~Wcquidditch~~WeirdNAnnoyed is only considering the "functional independence" aspect of WP:ORGIND because both articles fail the "intellectual independence" aspect. The WSJ article is a fluff piece where the author goes to their offices, interviews the founders and partners, regurgitates company "mission", methodology and other information (as told by the company exec) and has no "Independent Content". Similarly, the Boston Globe article is another puff profile which also relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with one of the founders. No "Independent Content". Both articles fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing. You mean User:WeirdNAnnoyed, not Wcquidditch! Rupples (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Needs more to pass WP:NCORP, specifically with regard to WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH. I'll accept the WSJ article as counting towards NCORP notability requirements (thanks User talk:Alpha3031 for the link), though quite a bit is interview quotes with the company founders. Disgree that the Boston Globe (Boston.com) amounts to SIGCOV as little is independent coverage of NextView — that article discusses seed investing in general and another Boston company. The rest of the sources appear to be based on funding and investment announcements put out by the company with little independent editorial comment. Rupples (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed. Meets WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- In-depth coverage in Tech Crunch:
  - Loizos, Connie (December 15, 2016). "NextView Ventures is looking to raise at least $50 million for a third fund".
  - Loizos, Connie (August 2, 2017). "NextView Ventures just sealed up its third fund with $50 million".
  - Mascarenhas, Natasha (November 13, 2020). "NextView Ventures closes its fourth fund with $89 million".
  - Mascarenhas, Natasha (April 20, 2020). "NextView Ventures is launching a remote accelerator for startups".
  - Mascarenhas, Natasha (October 11, 2022). "NextView Ventures' new $200 million fund comes with a slice of San Francisco".

- In-depth coverage in Wall Street Journal:

- In-depth coverage in Business Insider:
  - Shontell, Alyson. "Boston-Based VC Firm NextView Ventures Raises New $21 Million Fund". Business Insider.
  - "NextView Ventures' Rob Go Tells The Gadgets".

- In-depth coverage in Fortune:
  - "Exclusive: NextView Ventures raises first fund". Fortune.

- In-depth coverage in Boston Business Journal:

- In-depth coverage in VentureBeat:
  - "NextView Ventures raises $40M fund after exits to Twitter, Yahoo, & Groupon". July 17, 2014.

- In-depth coverage in Boston Globe:
  - "New seed stage investors are finding fertile ground in Internet start-ups - The Boston Globe". January 24, 2012. Archived from the original on January 24, 2012. Retrieved October 21, 2023.

- In-depth coverage in Axios:
  - "Boston's NextView Ventures raises third seed fund".

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NextView Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Klasmer (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GNG/NCORP provides better examples on which to consider sources including ones with non-Independent Content such as regurgitated PR and Announcements and "interviews" which make up the references provided by Klasmer above. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional assessment of sources brought up in this discussion would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm being shut out of a number of the new sources put up by User:Klasmer above so I'm withdrawing my !delete vote as there may or may not be sufficient coverage to satisfy NCORP within those I can't access. I note however, that Klasmer has only stated the sources fulfil the GNG and has made no mention of NCORP's criteria. Rupples (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The latter two WSJ articles seem to be from Dow Jones Institutional News again, thus available from ProQuest 2063287815 for "VC in 2015" and 2072224429 for "First Call". The other two are not on ProQuest or EBSCO, nor Gale that I could tell, but "Bullish On Boston" seems to be available as a Google AMP according to archive.is. Not sure about the second one, "NextView Captures $40M" though. Klasmer, was there anything specific in there beyond the funding announcement? Also, I was assuming, but was there anything other than the WSJ articles that you couldn't access, Rupples? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

The sources listed above are regurgitated PR and Announcements of funding, or relies on information/quotes provided by the company/execs. None of the sources listed above contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND requirement and none contains in-depth information *about the company* as per CORPDEPTH. All it shows is that the company has a functioning marketing dept. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the souces put up by Klasmer. TechCrunch - first two written by editor-in-chief, Connie Loizos, based on a SEC filing and company blog are independently written. The other three by Natasha M. are based on partners' statements with little independent editorial. Together, could be argued there's sufficient to count towards notability, but marginal. @Alpha3031 The WSJ. Lizette Chapman, I'm getting a single sentence on NextView, Russ Garland 3 sentences, but I'm unsure whether I'm seeing the full articles and perhaps there's more behind the log-in. The VC in 2015: Rob Go of NextView Ventures on Managing Exuberance article isn't about the company. The NextView Looks . . .I'm accepting as counting towards notability. Business Insider & Fortune, no in-depth coverage of the company. Boston Business Journal (i) regurgitation of the Fortune article (ii) not in-depth (iii) about Thred-up, an investment, not NextV. (iv) based entirely on partners' quotes, (v) & (vi) same article, unable to access. Venture Beat, not in-depth coverage. Boston Globe, not in-depth, largely about seed investing in general. Axiom, a single sentence & partner's quote, not in-depth. Rupples (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey — got around the Boston Business Journal block for no. (v). There's a bit of editorial but hardly in-depth. WSJ (i) same. That leaves just the WSJ (ii). Unless proved differently, going to assume it's similar depth of coverage to WSJ (i). Applying NCORP guidelines ORGDEPTH and ORGIND to what's sufficient, indepth, independent coverage in reliable sources I still don't see enough here so reinstating delete. Rupples (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. The sources in the article fails and those listed above are mentions and routine business news, I don't see anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP specifically WP:SERIESA and WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. Raising all the money in the world does not equate to impact until it's actually invested somewhere and has generated interesting enough results that journalists will write about the outcomes and specifically how the venture fund had a role beyond being a passive investor. lizthegrey (talk) 03:56, 5 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 league article, redirect teams‎. RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Pro Baseball League[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet either the WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Per WP:BUNDLE, I am also nominating the following related team pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Baseball, and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep league article, delete team articles. There are some sources out there that reference the league and it's status as a professional baseball league makes it worth having a historical article on. Spanneraol (talk) 21:46, 22 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!} 23:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wizardman 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the league article only, redirect the team articles to the league article. The league page has sources in it that are more than passing mentions, therefore passing GNG. Frank Anchor 22:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the league article only, then redirect the team articles to the league articles per above. None of these individually have WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV (found game recaps, mentions, database records), nothing that meets WP:N, but putting all these articles together they squeak past WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 09:19, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirro Mosi[edit]

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

Decently sourced, but the jury's now out on whether this subject can rise above run-of-the-mill status. (Surveyed as part of NPP October 2023.) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Albania. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 8 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!} 23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV clearly exists and the article probably passes GNG, although I have no knowledge of Albanian and can't comment on whether the sources are reliable. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:20, 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!} 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I made a Google search to find sources, I found that Reddit post [1]. Idk if it is a canvassing attempt or not. Whoever comes here to !vote should be aware that the AfD is closed based on the weight of the arguments rather than the number of !votes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: collected works are in the [2] Marubi National Museum of Photography, I think this meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER #4(b). // Timothy :: talk 22:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. I just added links to Google Translations to each of the six references. Most are independent, reliable references from Albanian media.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with the sources currently in the article. Jacona (talk) 23:51, 2 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of faith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated for deletion before. It is largely a WP:COATRACK composed of WP:OR that already is present in the criticism of religion article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the nominator, this article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of disparate pieces of non-related material. The "Epidemic" section of the article, for example, discusses how the Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia was questioned by some Pentecostals. It makes no mention about how people of faith help educate the public about Ebola.[3] Regardless this section (like all the sections in the article) have NOTHING to do with a "crisis of faith". It's simply an WP:ATTACKPAGE against religion. desmay (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was deleted in 2017. It was brought back without consensus. If any material was suggested, a redirect to Spiritual crisis or Crisis of absence of meaning seems more appropriate. I would argue what is the point of such an article in the first place? The Crisis article already addresses different types of crisis people face. It does look like a WP:COATRACK of these articles. People lose faith in stuff all the time (politics, family, friends, spouse, sports, the future, culture, etc) and at the same time they acquire faith in the same stuff too. The lead is not even sourced well in defining the topic article and the scope seem incredibly broad without any academic source. Some of the material seems more appropriate in depression or pessimism or nihilism. On top of that empirical studies show that many things in this article do not impact their faith in any consistent fashion. You can lose faith in "religion", but retain strong belief in God and vice versa. There are many layers to this. People lose faith in marriage but they still date extensively throughout their lives. People lose faith in government and do not vote, and yet they retain strong belief in political candidates. An easy one is God, in that belief in God is not impacted by tragedies [4]. People get over it and move on. on top of this, the focus of the article is too much on religion and ignores the disillusionment among the nonreligious with secularism, many of which can be found in List of converts to Christianity from nontheism. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the article's main points and overall structure come directly from academic sources, namely, Robert C Evans, Sydney Eisen, and Jennifer Michael Hecht. I find it odd to say the article is an attack on religion because it is quite clear that strengthened faith is a common outcome of a crisis of faith. It includes the examples of Job, Julia Wedgewood, Ellice Hopkins, Søren Kierkegaard, Richard Rubenstein, etc. Jno.skinner (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Jno.skinner, the article is in reasonably good shape overall and is largely well-referenced and not OR. The lead might need some cleanup to better summarize the article, and the section about Ebola could be removed (or improved with better references), but we don't need to delete the entire article to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM —siro χ o 03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I included Ebola in Liberia in an effort to achieve WP:GLOBAL perspective by including something from Africa. I would gladly see it replaced with some other account from that continent. Ideas? Jno.skinner (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a reasonable thought. I have no specific ideas, sorry. However, if there are any academic articles to back up the NYT claims it would be a stronger sign to include it as an example. —siro χ o 18:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this is something of a WP:COATRACK, but looking at the other articles that are mentioned I do think that the approach of this one ("faith") differs from what there is in WP:Existential crisis (which seems to be the closest to this). That article is couched in somewhat psychological terms, sometimes even scientific, and this one is more humanistic. I think there is room for both. I *am* concerned that this article primarily seems to be the work of one editor, and that there have been some violations of deletion policy. I would suggest bringing in other editors to make sure the content is created in a cooperative way. I do think that the Accounts section needs revision because there are aspects that I do not think belong there. Lamona (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona. Isn't having two articles covering the same topic with a different "approach" (one somewhat psychological... sometimes even scientific and the other more humanistic) a WP:POVSPLIT which we should avoid? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Tomorrow and tomorrow Different approaches can be entirely different content. Look at Evolution and the related articles. In part, covering all of the aspects in one article could lead to an overly long article. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I vote to delete. Substantial parts of the article veer off into a generic attack on religion. NishantXavier (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into existential crisis. This is a WP:CFORK that it is largely written in a manner to disparage religion. Dympies (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not well done and it violates Wikipedia:Attack page, NPOV and WP:COATRACK. For example, every one of its points can apply to irreligion, but you would never know this by reading the article. I also agree with Ramos1990 who wrote: "This article was deleted in 2017. It was brought back without consensus. If any material was suggested, a redirect to Spiritual crisis or Crisis of absence of meaning seems more appropriate. I would argue what is the point of such an article in the first place? The Crisis article already addresses different types of crisis people face." Knox490 (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Important concept in religious studies, though the article clearly needs a lot of work. Graham (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graham. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, textbook WP:SYNTH, and a dup topic of Spiritual crisis. I'd say merge, but I don't see any properly sourced content for a merge, and Spiritual crisis doesn't need anymore problems. No objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 22:42, 28 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!} 23:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gonna have to divide my comment into two sections here:
- On the article's topic — The concept is poorly defined, and there seems to be no real scope separating it from Spiritual crisis or Existential crisis with some content more properly belonging in the criticism of religion or apostasy articles. Some of it seems to think the article is titled 'reasons why people leave religions'. It is about 4 different topics WP:synthed together in a trench-coat. Or in WP:COATRACK term's additional topics.... grouped together to make it appear as if they were all examples of the same thing. Any notable content already falls under another article. For these reasons alone the article should be deleted.
- On the article's content — contains a plethora of personal accounts/testimonies that are reminiscent of r/atheism. While the people who wrote them may well be notable, that doesn't mean they need to collated in one place and hosted by Wikipedia, that isn't our purpose.They should remain in that person's article. So the entire "accounts" section is problematic. The 'outcomes section' isn't too great either, again largely relying on individual examples/accounts including in one place an account of a fictional character's thoughts. A few sociological citations don't justify a WP:OR depiction of 4 outcomes. Anyone looking for a definition can pass over this page, the "Description" section leaves one less enlightened as to the term's meaning, which as presented in the article seems to be any kind of doubt in anything (but the article's actual content only focuses on crisis of religion). As for sourcing, the academic/research sources that are included simply consist of personal anecdotes/observations made by researchers. For all these reasons the article needs at the very least a WP:TNT.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK of spiritual crisis. The majority of the article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of information that is written in a WP:POV manner (a polemical attack against religion). Agletarang (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The feeling of wanting to leave a religion is a well-sourced topic (obviously). Furthermore, if anything, spiritual crisis is less well-written and should be nominated instead. No POV issues with this article existing since a section can be made to how each different religion address that issue. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:51, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Svechkar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, having searched for sources in English and Russian. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that additional sources were added but that they do little to establish a case for notability: [5] is a social media post, [6] is a local news source reporting that a seminar given by Svechkar was presented by Dynamo Vologda, his team, and provides no further analysis of Svechkar's biography or career. [7] is the same source, interviewing Svechkar for a brief comment on Dynamo Vologda's success, and [8] is an unbylined press release of Svechkar being hired at Dynamo Vologda. We are still entirely lacking independent coverage discussing Svechkar's life, play style, coaching style, or other biographic information that would justify an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Rosguill's assessment of the available sourcing and agree that this is some way short of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Rosguill's eval. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berto Ferrero[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, having searched for coverage online in English, Spanish and Russian. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Russia, and Spain. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that additional sources have been added that interview Ferrero [9] [10] but provide no significant independent coverage of his career or life, and thus do not help build a case for notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in any language. People whose most significant role is an academy coordinator or assistant manager very rarely meet GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject Directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:20, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Grant (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage available online other than mere-mentions in match writeups. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 144 games for Alloa, with some sources like Herald Scotland, The Times. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are match reports; the first mentions his sending off, the second mentions goals scored by him. Coverage doesn't get more routine than that. The two articles do not contribute to WP:GNG being met. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: If you're going to do that, then you need to delete every season article, every footballer article there is, match reports do contribute to GNG, to say they are all routine coverage is not a practical way to run wikipedia guidelines. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go down the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rabbit hole. The mentions of Grant in the two articles are "trivial mentions" as explained in WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's delete the other articles with inadequate sourcing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we should start with deleting BLPs that don't meet WP:BLP policy for strong sourcing, even if the subject played with balls, regardless of type. // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no evidence of this article meeting GNG. The sources provided aren't significant. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 4 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. Discussions about content and potential merging can still take place at the article and on its talk page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Election denial movement[edit]

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

"Election denial movement" is a phrase sometimes used in reliable sources to refer to attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. While the topic of that article is a notable and clearly defined one, this article synthesises ideas from some sources that use the phrase, and many that don't, to propose an expansive definition that none of them directly support. In other words, this article substantially overlaps with another article, and where its scope extends beyond that article it does so by making claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Politics, and United States of America. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Bogus AFD~~ Keep and improve. I see this as a bogus AfD because the nominator has made no attempt at the article or on its talk page to address their concerns. Not one attempt. This is not a collaborative or collegial way to deal with this issue. I suggest they immediately withdraw this AfD and get their ass over to the article's talk page and seek to get this straightened out. Their concerns may have some legitimacy, but the proper way to deal with them are to start at the talk page before starting an AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how AfD work. The nom is saying that the concept itself Is not suitable for en.wiki as an encyclopedia. There's nothing, from their perspective, to attempt to fix.

You sound like you are invested in the page and therefore it is understandable that you've reacted as you have. However, we all have a responsibility to assume good faith. In the context of an AfD discussion that means engaging with the process on its own merits and referring to the notability criteria. It certainly doesn't involve demanding that other editors engage in other work. JMWt (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt, I have no idea why you would think I am "invested" in this page. That's a weird thing to say, and you need to AGF. I clearly AGF ("Their concerns may have some legitimacy"), but believe this was a misguided and uncollegial approach to resolving the problem. While it's technically allowed to go directly to an AfD or other drama board, it starts a very disruptive process, in the sense that all drama board and AE processes are disruptive and time-consuming time sinks involving many editors. I believe it's better to first try the normal process of talk page discussion, and only when that doesn't work, to then progress to harsher measures. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

If I thought this article was in any way salvageable, I'd certainly have started a discussion at the talk page, or just tried to fix the issues myself. But I don't think that (and hope I haven't given the impression that I do). Why would I begin a talk page discussion about an article that I think needs to be deleted, rather than using the designated venue for deletion discussions? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So it's really only ONE election they didn't like the 2020 one. EVENT not met, we could redirect to the 2020 election, but that's all it's about and is amply covered there. Oaktree b (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree it's a SYNTH. Could perhaps be a 2020 Election denial article, but, there are no other elections denied, so it's seems un-needed to be that descriptive. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the revisions definitely haven't addressed my (the nominator's) objections. The fundamental issue I raised in the nomination remains very much the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prob keep but needs considerable rewriting to avoid WP:BIAS and avoid turning this into a Soapbox. For a start the title needs changing. It may even need complete WP:TNT. In my view there is enough evidence in the sources that there is, in fact, a movement of denial of elections specifically in the USA. How this can be written in a fair and balanced way without undue WP:SYNTH, I have no idea. JMWt (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: I'd suggest that an article revised in the ways you suggest would be indistinguishable from an article that already exists: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. That article isn't perfect, but it's generally well-sourced and well-written, and its narrow focus on the 2020 election means it avoids making the unsubstantiated claims this article makes. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 15 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!} 21:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to improve neutrality, refer to the phenomenon in other instances, by other parties. It is a notable topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with any new information with Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Then delete because this article is redundant but that other article is much better both in coverage and tone. Lamona (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election: There could be an article on Election denial movements (1960, 1828, 2020, etc in the United States, plus movements in other nationas) as a summary style article for the topic, but as this is written it an dup of the target article. // Timothy :: talk 12:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Organizations. rootsmusic (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- keep both. This article is about a long-term continuing movement that in 2023 is very active in many states in changing election laws for future elections. The other article is highly specific to a historic event 3 years ago. Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources claim that such a movement exists? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several reliable sources in the article refer explicitly to "election denial movement." I would not have created the article without it. The article has been significantly altered in the past day. It's now a different article, so which version are we addressing now? soibangla (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that sources use the phrase, as should be clear from the first sentence of the nomination. I was asking which of the sources make the specific claim Rjensen makes above. It's not a gotcha question or anything, there are 68 sources currently cited and they make a lot of varied claims. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if editors would enumerate specific words, phrases or sentences in the article, unsupported by reliable sources, that warrant article deletion, particularly but not limited to assertions of POV soibangla (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arms & Hearts: can you provide examples of how the article makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites, as you assert? soibangla (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One obvious example would be the article's first sentence: The election denial movement often refers to a belief of widespread rigging or fraud in US elections with members of the movement referred to as election deniers. This doesn't follow from anything in the article body and isn't supported by any of the sources in the article. More broadly, though, I think you're missing that synthesis doesn't have to work at the level of specific words, phrases or sentences to be a problem (and, as you're probably aware, specific words, phrases or sentences usually don't amount to good reasons for deletion in and of themselves); in fact, synthesis is often characterised by accurate claims made at the sentence level that are then combined to give an overall impression that's inaccurate. For example, see the sections on the 1876 election and the birther conspiracy theory. What the article explicitly says about these things is broadly accurate and supported by the sources. By discussing those phenomena in this article, though, another claim is being made: that these events form part of a broader "election denial movement". This claim isn't supported by the sources and seems unlikely to be true. (I see that you replied to me twice here, pinging me once, then a third time below, pinging again, the following day, a period in which I wasn't active in this discussion or elsewhere. I'd suggest this is approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory and would remind you that other editors aren't obliged to respond to your inquiries (the corollary of which is that you're free to draw whatever conclusions you wish about other editors' decision not to reply to you). If I'd been actively editing elsewhere, a degree of tetchiness about not receiving a reply would have been understandable, but in these circumstances you could probably have safely assumed I'd reply to you when I got a chance, and left it at one reply, not three.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
none of the three examples you cite here were in the article at the time you opened this AfD.[11] soibangla (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted the specific examples of possible synthesis that have been raised with an in-line synthesis template and removed the birther one altogether since it seemed to focus on a key figure (he's discussed in the key figures section now). I also flagged the recently-added 2000 and 2019 statewide races that could use a more direct connection Superb Owl (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- keep both. This article discusses a movement that is notable to the 2016 election, 2020 election, 2022 election, 2023 Speaker of the House election, 2024 election... and the common people, groups and ideas across these elections. Have reorganized the page to better reflect this and added links between related articles and addressed a number of the NPOV issues. Superb Owl (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about renaming the article "Election denialism in the United States"? Superb Owl (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your significant edits in the past day have made it difficult for editors know to which version of the article we're discussing here now, perhaps leading some to conclude this "new" version should be deleted, rather than the version at the time of this AfD. I recommend you roll back your edits until this AfD is settled. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not roll back. It is normal & desirable to improve an article while deletion is discussed, to correct weaknesses & lead to non-deletion. Kim9988 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Do not roll back legitimate edits that seek to meet criticisms and improve the article. Do not roll back to a previous version. It has always been normal practice to improve the article during the AfD process. Right in the notice it says: "Feel free to improve the article." In fact, the ideal result of an AfD is that the article is improved so much it is saved and the AfD is withdrawn.

Liz, please take note. Your rollback is totally against normal process and instructions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and have commented below, Valjean. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Almost all of the article's content is already covered in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. While there were some claims of "STOLEN ELECTION!!!11!!!1" in the 2022 election cycle, they were nowhere near as widespread and were generally not taken seriously by the public (see 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election), because absentee voting, which Trump had consistently fearmongered about, was not as heavily utilized in that election. This is not enough to justify a standalone article. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the attempts to overturn elections in 2022 might not have been as notable as they were in 2020, I don't think that is a slam-dunk for saying that there is not an existing undercurrent. Additionally, I'm not sure that the argument that the efforts were not taken seriously by the public isn't as strong of an argument when voter turnout — particularly in off-year elections — isn't super high. User:JusBer88 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes reliable sources are studying the election denial movement: (1) Brookings Institute (Nov 15 2022) describes it : "The recent election was very bad for the election denier movement, and the election of Katie Hobbs as governor of Arizona completed the bad news. Hobbs...held the line against people who, like their leader Donald Trump, believed that there was massive corruption in the 2020 election. In the years since, they believed that by “fixing” the system, Trump could win in 2024. By sowing unfounded doubt about election administration in many places, they created a threat to democracy....we identified 345 candidates running on a platform of election denial.... Overall, 226 election deniers or 66% won their races." see online published statement (2) Also: "The election denial movement is the culmination of years of partisan wrangling over the rules that govern elections along with increasing skepticism about the reliability...." [from Sautter, Chris. "US Democracy Survives a Challenge." in Campaigns and Elections American Style (Routledge, 2023) pp. 33-51.]; (3) "The election denial movement began with the Tea Party’s formation around the time of President Obama’s first election, fueled by White Christian Republican fear of losing power." [Smolar, Andrew I. "How Group Identifications Have Contributed to Our National Discord." Group 47#12 (2023): 115-147.] Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve and probably rename. To what, I don't know, maybe "Republican Party election denial movement". If the consensus is this article has to include all times that someone has ever denied the results of an election, then I don't really think that's notable as it's synthesis of many different, unrelated topics into one article, it could be a list article I guess. As it is, the title and to a lesser extent article content is very vague, when the focus and title of the article should be basically fully focused on the movement Trump initiated in 2020, primed by the background of him claiming he really won the popular vote in 2016 and all of his other conspiracy theories like birtherism (priming people to believe facts without evidence). All of previous to 2020 should be in a general "background" heading. At this point, the attempts to deny almost every single Republican election that is lost as "rigged" since 2020 probably deserves its own article beyond the very well resourced 2020 one, the 2020 article can't include all the details of elections like Kari Lake. Also, I don't understand why there's so much information about elections before and since 2020 but only a "see main" about the main event in this whole movement with no summary whatsoever.MarkiPoli (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MarkiPoli please see the version of the article that existed at the time this AfD was opened.[12] The article has been substantially altered since then. It is now a completely different article, and I again ask Superb Owl to roll back their major changes so everyone here is reading from the same sheet of music regarding this AfD dated October 14. Liz, because you relisted this AfD, I request your attention to this matter, as I believe this process has been corrupted such that we cannot know if editors are discussing the original AfD version or the current version that is substantially different. soibangla (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That version is *better*, although the first sentence arguably violates NPOV and is kind of clunky, it would be better just starting out at 2020 and going through the events since then and the movement it started. The eventual article should probably be closer to that revision than the current version in my opinion. My view has not changed, the article should be kept but improved and retitled, imo "Election denialism in the United States" is not specific enough to the fact this is a Trump and Republican party phenomenon. There's other party candidates that have claimed fraud/rigging such as Stacey Abrams, but at that point you would have to make it a list article as they are totally unrelated apart from the fact they claimed fraud, which you can do for any number of reasons, unlike the clear line you can draw between 2020, increased voting restrictions in red states, Kari Lake, coming up to 2024, etc. You can't do all of that on the 2020 overturning article, which is already too long. MarkiPoli (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral and potentially close — I have looked over the previous version and concur that Superb Owl has substantially altered this article's focus and thus this AfD is nullified. Further consideration will need to take place to determine if this article should be deleted. In its current state, this article is not up to a sufficient standard for Wikipedia and should be further worked on. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I received an email notification of this discussion so I feel obligated to say something. I briefly scanned the Oct 23 and current versions. I'm short on time today (sorry), so I'll just make a general comment. U.S. 2020 election denial is a massive topic. Because existing articles — Attempts to overturn..., United States House Select Committee..., various indictments — are already long and tend to focus on the actions of Trump's inner circle, we do need a "movement" article like this to describe the phenomenon more sociologically. Tens of millions of U.S. voters continue to put political faith in Trump, centered on their shared denialism of the 2020 election specifically or (it seems to me) on a more general affirmation that Trump always wins and thus elections aren't trustworthy and don't matter. (I don't have time to seek reliable sources to demonstrate that claim right now. I'm just imagining what this article could be about, were it to survive on Wikipedia and be expanded.) Yes, this "movement" is a relevant, significant topic. Keeping "United States" or "Republican" in the title is of course helpful. I don't immediately have any ideas about the best way to write this article, and I would defer to people who have already spent time thinking about it. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously strongly notable topic and equally clearly this is about more than just the 2020 presidential election. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes - *entirely* agree with those above that consider the current article worthy (for a variety of reasons) - and relevant - nonetheless - further improvements are ok of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Original synthesis. The current version has not solved the OR issues. The nominator is absolutely correct that the sources are connecting events across time into an original conception of an "election denial movement ". It's a convincing essay, and would be great as a college paper, but it is an original synthesis of events drawn into a larger picture than any one source provides. It could be draftified and retitled Denial of elections in the United States and rewritten in order to remove the original synthesis. It isn't ready for main space in its current state.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an editor to provide a concrete example from the article to illustrate that it is synthesis, original research, POV or makes "makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites," as opposed to, say...WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just one example? Arms & Hearts? soibangla (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla Synthesis is about the whole and not just the parts. Please provide a single source that has an overarching narrative that reflects the overarching narrative of this article and ties all of the composite parts together in the way this one has. There isn’t one. Hence original synthesis.4meter4 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, are you arguing that our articles must have an overarching narrative supported by just one overarching source? you seem to argue that if I cannot produce one source that encompasses the entire article and ties all of the composite parts together then the entire article is invalid. is that commonly seen on Wikipedia? the overarching narrative of this article is that an "election denial movement" exists, and several reliable sources explicitly say so and discuss the phenomenon in a variety of perspectives and contexts. can you demonstrate there is an overarching "A and B, therefore, C" of synth here? can you demonstrate that synth exists in even an isolated case in the article, like a sentence or paragraph? soibangla (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the contagion has spread to state level races, and to other countries. It is the subject of journalistic and scholarly analysis. Abductive (reasoning) 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thus far editors have asserted the article is synth, OR, biased, POV, soapbox, a college essay, makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites, and propose[s] an expansive definition that none of [the sources] directly support, though the article contains several reliable sources that directly and explicitly reference "election denial movement" as a defined term. Editors have thrown the book at the article. I have asked three times for editors to provide concrete evidence to support these characterizations, yet none has been forthcoming. Nothing. Where's the beef? soibangla (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any admin will delete this article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. It is certainly wider and older than the situation in the US, see for example Irish republican legitimism. The Banner talk 23:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems an odd justification for keeping an article that's now called Election denial movement in the United States. I'm also not sure what "both" means here, as this is a discussion about a single article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable concept that has, at this point, extended beyond denying just the 2020 results. XTheBedrockX (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since opinion is divided and the discussion is still very active, I'm relisting this discussion again. Due to some complaints about participants judging this article based on its current condition versus the state is was at the time of nomination, I've temporarily reverted the article back to its original condition. By looking at my edit, you can see the entirety of the changes made. I've never taken this bold action before when reviewing an AFD discussion but I do see my edit as a temporary reversion that can be undone when this AFD is closed. I encourage those seeking deletion of this article to respond to questions posed to them about specific problems that exist or assert that the entire article is irredeemable. Because I've taken a bold action that some might view as problematic, I will not be closing this AFD discussion. I should also add that this article, unfortunately, has been moved during this discussion so its current name is Election denial movement in the United States. Moving during an AFD is discouraged as it complicates relistings and discussion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Liz and apologies for my earlier editing on the page.

Keep.

1) this movement pre-existed efforts to overturn the 2020 election (2012, 2016, arguably origins in birtherism challenging Obama's legitimacy)

2) other election results have been denied (2022 AZ, analysts predict this will happen in future elections as well...)

3) it would be synthesis to assume everyone in this movement agrees with the goals (let alone methods) of those trying to overturn the 2020 election results. Just because there is overlap and the election denial movement appears to be being heavily recruited from for attempts to overturn the 2020 election, it's not a 1:1 equation. Superb Owl (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not roll back legitimate edits that seek to meet criticisms and improve the article. Do not roll back to a previous version. It has always been normal practice to improve the article during the AfD process. Right in the notice it says: "Feel free to improve the article." In fact, the ideal result of an AfD is that the article is improved so much it is saved and the AfD is withdrawn.
Liz, please take note. Your rollback is totally against normal process and instructions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I stated that this was a temporary reversion and knew that I could be reverted. I've never taken an action like this on the hundreds of other AFDs I've reviewed. Besides this comment, I will not be taking any further action on this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Liz, your reversion seems to contradict Wikipedia:How to save an article nominated for deletion. WP says about editing the nominated article:

One of the best ways to save an article from deletion is to make necessary changes so that the article no longer has the problems stated by the nominator and all others stating it should be deleted.
An article that is proposed for deletion may be edited just like any other, provided that the deletion tag is not removed. Editing the article may be necessary to prevent its deletion. Making appropriate changes may help save it. One of the best ways to save an article from deletion is to make necessary changes so that the article no longer has the problems stated by the nominator and all others stating it should be deleted.

If Superb Owl didn't follow WP's guidance, then please advise him/her what should be changed instead of rejecting the edits that were intended to address the nominator's objections. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the rollback. The editor who opened the AfD cited three examples from the post-AfD version as justification for deletion, not as improvements that might move us closer to resolving this AfD. We all need to be reading from the same page. This is the best alternative to closing the AfD because it has become corrupted. As this AfD is now on its second relisting, and I still don't see anyone addressing specific examples of the primary complaint here, that of synth at any level, I would not object to closure. soibangla (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your restore prior to a response from Liz was premature, and I believe it clstrfks this process and I recommend an uninvolved admin/editor close it now. In any event, I won't participate here anymore. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above concerns. It’s also worth noting that this article’s title implies a very general coverage yet its body suggests that election denialism is a uniquely Republican concept that was invented in 2020. Adding coverage of other instances of election denialism in the U.S. (such as regarding Trump’s 2016 victory and perhaps even some fringe movements before that) would be a good place to start on trying to salvage this article. Sewageboy (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably re-title. There have been many movements to deny official election counts, and an overview of them is useful. Nixon and his allies doubted the 1960 election. Democrats had doubts about Republican wins in 2000, 2004, and 2016, and Republicans doubted 2008 and 2020. Denials of different elections do have different details and may need their own articles. However they have in common the ideas that election offices can report the wrong results, that candidates or parts of the public express doubt until they are convinced or enough time passes, and that legal appeals are explored. Many articles have similar broad coverage of many somewhat-related topics: Electoral fraud, Transport, Computer security, etc. Furthermore, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election says in the heading that it needs to be split into sub-articles. This could be one, so info from the bigger article can come here. If this grows to cover a series of denials of different election results, then denial of 2020 Presidential results may be a separate article. This kind of work needs to be decided in the talk page, not in a deletion page. Kim9988 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remain strongly for KEEP. The main original complaint was the concentration of the USA and the new title completely solves that problem. Denialism is a major force in US politics and it now pertains to future elections -- that is a new and powerful phenomenon in US politics. As far as I can see no prominent Democrats support it, but it does have some support among the rank and file Democrats. Polls show lots of independents do support it so its is not exclusively a GOP issue. Here is a 2023 scholarly study finding deep roots : "Among Republicans, conspiracism has a potent effect on embracing election denialism, followed by racial resentment. Among independents, the strongest influences on denialism are Christian nationalism and racial resentment. And, although election denialism is rare among Democrats, what variation does exist is mostly explained by levels of racial resentment." [source: Charles Stewart III, "Public Opinion Roots of Election Denialism" (January 4, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4318153 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4318153] (I am adding this quote to the article). Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that all instances of someone saying an election was fraudulent or stolen should be in this article. If it is, then its a list article that should be titled "List of disputed elections in the United States" or something similar. This article should be solely about the Republican efforts led by Donald Trump since 2020, and the title should be something like "Republican Party election denial movement". At this point, this AfD has gone severely off the rails, the article is now much worse off (opposite of what AfD is supposed to do) and a bit of the old WP:TNT might be needed to get it back on track. Although I do still think this article is needed and can take some word count off Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. For example, the "background" section of that article could be condensed there and details put here instead. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkiPoli list already exists at Contested elections in American history. rootsmusic (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That article needs serious work as well. You could definitely expand that to cover other elections. You could have presidential elections as a heading and the individual elections as subheadings. Then you can have congress, governor, and whatever else. Anyway I think this furthers my point this article should only be about the current Republican Party efforts to deny the legitimacy of elections and voting. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on electoral fraud, transport and computer security, but notably we don't have articles called electoral fraud movement, transport movement or computer security movement. Election denial exists (bracketing the question of whether it's a notable phenomenon), but this article makes the very different, and unsubstantiated, claim that an "election denial movement" exists. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, election denialism is a conspiracy theory that has been propagated by election deniers for many years. Unfortunately, election denialism is combined into Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and contributes to making that article too long. Like @MarkiPoli commented yesterday, that article should split (WP:Splitting) off its sub-sections about conspiracies into a separate article. But discussions about that article should be redirected to its own Talk Page. rootsmusic (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic that reaches beyond the 2020 US elections, even while the current content needs work. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholars are publishing papers about this exact topic. It's in the popular media. SNOW keep. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2020 US Presidential Election. this is a non neutral with Woke leaning point of view otherwise. The policy of wikipedia is neutral point of view

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading through the nomination and following discussion, this is pretty clearly a content dispute, for which AfD is a poor forum. The dispute should be resolved on the various talk pages, where merging (or split/merging etc) can be discussed at length. —siro χ o 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: editors should give strong consideration to a merge, looking at the unique conent in this article and its sourcing quality and how it will fit in the target. // Timothy :: talk 15:35, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennish Himawan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage in greater depth than mere-mentions in match writeups was available in an internet search. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 16:05, 4 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 chess periodicals. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingpin (chess magazine)[edit]

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

None of the sources cited even remotely provide the depth of coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and a search provides nothing of any real consequence either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Sports. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this publication suffers from the opposite problem to WP:RECENTISM, what might be called "pre-internetism". It had its heyday in the pre-internet era, the 1980s and 1990s, during which time many leading British chess players wrote for it. It is occasionally cited in chess books too, e.g. Amatzia Avni's "Devious Chess", Sarah Hurst's "Curse of Kirsan". Certainly any British player who was active in the 90s had heard of it, and many subscribed to it, enjoying its irreverence. However, internet-based sources that give it significant coverage are comparatively rare. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - trying adding the editor's name, Jonathan Manley, to the search. "Jonathan Manley chess" will produce plenty of hits, mostly related to Kingpin magazine. While most of the content is not available online, it can be seen that he interviewed many of the world's leading players and the magazine was highly regarded among chess players. The content from Tony Miles] is especially notable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of chess periodicals as an AtD. If the entry grows enough WP:IS WP:RS refs with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, it can be split, but at this point it does not meet guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 12:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MaxBrowne2. Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 27 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!} 22:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess periodicals. If there are offline sources available, someone needs to do the work and find them. At the moment it doesn't pass GNG. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of chess periodicals. I added a few sources from Newspapers Extended, and there are passing mentions also in some of Leonard Barden's columns such as the article topics in the latest Kingpin issue, but not the WP:SIGCOV we need for this to get its own page. BBQboffin (talk) 20:03, 30 October 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 per WP:NEXIST. Adding the sources and other improvements to the article are highly desirable, but not required for AfD closure. RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rio de Janeiro–São Paulo megalopolis[edit]

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

WP:OR; no actual sourcing for notability/reliability in article, just a few passing mentions of the concept. lizthegrey (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Brazil. lizthegrey (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems weird to call it this a megalopolis when the image shows clearly how distinct Rio and Sao Paulo are with a big dark gap between them. The two urban areas are about 180 miles apart, similar to New York to Washington DC, but the Northeast megalopolis has Baltimore and Philadelphia in between too! This would need much better sourcing to even call it a megalopolis in the first place and then to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep. While the article needs some improvement and expansion, the subject appears to meet WP:GNG.

GNG is primarily established by the many pages of SIGCOV by Godfrey, Brian J. "Revisiting Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo". Geographical Review. [13]. One short keystone quote for the topic of this article:
Even as Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo have sprawled to form the two main nuclei of an integrated megalopolis with a current population of between 30 and 60 million in southeastern Brazil, the two cities retain distinguishing characteristics.
- The above paper references and critiques an earlier 1933 paper by Preston E. James from 1933 that seems to have discussed the idea briefly, note however that was prior to the modern definition of "megalopolis", so we rely on the above paper to provide necessary context.
A solid chunk of coverage in Cities of the World: Regional Patterns and Urban Environments [14], which uses "megalopolis", "expanded metropolitan complex" and "conurbation" to describe the subject.
Pages 24–28 of Mega-city Growth and the Future [15] covers this subject along with several other related ones.
There's also mentions by Jean Gottmann (who literally wrote the book on Megolopolis[16]) in "Megalopolitan systems around the world" [17] and "An interview with Jean Gottmann on urban geography" [18]. While these mentions are shorter, the individual doing the mentioning gives weight.
Further mentions in [19][20][21][22][23] help establish the accepted subject in name, as well.

—siro χ o 09:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to reverse my nomination if those sources were added to the article rather than it being a bare almost-unsourced stub. lizthegrey (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. While I often do try to improve articles by adding sources and improving verifiability, for deletion discussions that hinge on notability, which is most of them, the general consensus is to abide by WP:NEXIST. I will try to get to this one at some point but I am not sure when that will be. If you're not able to add the sources either, anyone else can, or is also free to copy any of this into a ((Refideas)) template on the talk page. —siro χ o 01:40, 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!} 22:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:NEXIST per siroxo. S5A-0043^Talk 05:38, 2 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 (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Lutchen[edit]

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

The few sources not from the subject's institution do not establish relevance.

Also, its creator has only ever edited this page, which, per another editor's flag, reads very much like a resume. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I am persuaded by the comments of other editors with respect to the notability of the subject and withdraw my nomination for deletion. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 at least. Nominator is advised to read WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the reference, @Xxanthippe. I will read it before making further nominations for deletion.

Just because I cannot help myself, however, I would like to say in my defense that I deliberately selected the deletion option that gave other editors the most time to overrule my nomination, should my novice assessment be mistaken.

Also, as someone new to new page patrol, just how seriously to take the various Wikipedia policies is often extremely unclear. When enforcement of written policy is so inconsistent, it is difficult to determine best practices.

If new page patrol is just supposed to approve everything not in flagellant violation of core Wikipedia policies, it should say as much at the top of the volunteer description. I'd be happy to convey this myself if more experienced editors think it would be of value and can point me to the best place to do so.

My ego investment, however, is very close to zero. So I have no problem simply letting my new page patrol rights expire if this is, at least at present, simply not a productive way for me to contribute to Wikipedia.

Thanks (really!) to everyone who has checked and corrected my work —

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think the role of NPP is genuinely ambiguous. This seems like a reasonable nomination to me. At the time of nomination: no notability claim, written like a resume, no secondary sources cited. I don't expect a NPP to be intimately familiar with every SNG. For next time, you know a little more about academic notability and so can calibrate your "nomination sensitivity". Suriname0 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, most of the claims people are using as support for their keep comments here were present in the article at the time of nomination. If you see that and think "no notability claim", what it demonstrates is that you are unfamiliar with what an academic notability claim looks like. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Suriname0,

Thanks for taking the time to express your understanding!

He will correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure @David Eppstein's comment here is directed at me, not you, and needs to be read in the context of our discussion here.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was directed at Suriname0's incorrect "At the time of nomination: no notability claim". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I really don't see how this is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY. Thanks(?), though, for clarifying. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the incorrectness of a claim in a discussion is not incivil. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with respect to me, as someone that you know to have self-selected to train in an academic field characterized by intense disagreement among experts. However, absent additional context of which I am not aware, I find your comment unnecessarily rude. It's never awesome to punch down. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable.
- This was not written by the subject but probably by a University PR flack who scrambled to get an article when Lutchen was announced as Boston University's interim provost. I can tell it wasn't Lutchen because no academic would ever write "PLUS One" instead of "PLOS One".
- Lutchen is a fellow of two major biomedical engineering organizations. He won a major award from the third (I think he's a fellow there but I can't tell).
- Google Scholar reports an h-index of 54, an i-10 index of 124 and 9606 citations. His rank and citation rate have dropped in later years, probably because he's been busy as Dean of Engineering.
- Lutchen grew the biomedical engineering program while he was chair. He grew the engineering school while he was dean.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS citations [24] look healthy (top five 512,357,268,261,256 and four more >200; and ~21 further >100). Boston University university provost and chief academic officer might also be significant though it appears only a temporary appointment. There's also at least one elected fellowship: International Academy of Medical and Biological Engineering [25] and the bio there states he was president of American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering. (His CV [26] might be easier to read than the article.) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above that it was probably written in haste by some poor PR person, but it was properly submitted and accepted via AfC, so that should not influence us unduly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citation counts and #C1 (which are always tricky to calibrate for different fields) and the IAMBE Fellow title and #C3 (I don't know IAMBE well enough to judge how selective this is) are both suggestive but not definitive for me. But I think the AIMBE presidency is unambiguously a pass of #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject does pass WP:NPROF. The current page needs to be redacted heavily as there is a lot of content based on primary sources and OR; however, AfD is not cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 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 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Miles[edit]

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

This is a WP:BLP1E and should be redirected to 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election; a previous BLAR by Onel5969 was reverted. No apparent notability and coverage outside of her unsuccessful candidacy in the Democratic primary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Illinois. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, Indiana, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or restore redirect. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election as a WP:ATD. Subject does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. User:Let'srun 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Let'srun--Mpen320 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:32, 4 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!} 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saydulla Madaminov[edit]

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

Primary editor has been banned for paid, promotional editing.

Also, notability of the subject is questionable (I am not qualified to assess the quality of all the non-English sources). Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Uzbekistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No "inherent" notability, though as the commander of a military branch he is more likely to have coverage in sources than a typical military officer. Sources likely to be in Uzbek/Russian. Curbon7 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an extremely weird article. I have checked the sources in Russian, almost none of them directly reference what is said in the article. Reference #3 is simply his picture during his study at the Aviation Institute. #4 Is just the list of all officers awarded a medal, with his name being on the list. #5 Is completely Irrelevant, its an article on Russian wiki about the rank of colonel. #7 Is a news article that does reference him, but again, completely irrelevant to the sentence it is referencing. #8 Is just his name in a list of Inspectors. The articles only source on him that actually talks about him in depth awas deleted twice because it was from a blog website. Looks 100% like a paid article F.Alexsandr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiably commander of Uzbekistan's air force, which clearly makes him notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He holds the position of the commander of Uzbekistan's air force, a role that undeniably establishes his notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwarner582 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Being a colonel who commanded a small military division does not make the subject notable, this is stretching the guideline well past the point a subject can be presumed (and it is well known that 'a presumption is not a guarantee a subject will automatically meets notability). This BLP subject fails any presumtion in the absence of WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. F.Alexsandr did a source review and found nothing, nothing in the Keep votes above has sources, just opinions. AfDs are determined by sourcing and notability.

This is a WP:BLP and requires strong sourcing, BLP is policy and overrides any guidelines. BLP policy and lack of SIGCOV from RS mean this needs to be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 08:59, 4 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 delete‎. per G5 - created by Abtach who are banned. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bricks Charity[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Per BEFORE search, almost all of the sources are (1) routine, trivial coverage of the organization donating legos to a hospital; (2) interviews with the organization's founder; or (3) fluff pieces about the founder's setting a Guinness World Record. I have not uncovered any independent sources covering the organization in-depth. Upworthy, cited in the article, is definitely not an RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Toys, Medicine, and Virginia. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep‎. The article was significantly updated (improved?) during the debate, rendering a large number of the comments provided prior to the update as being less relevant. While some were updated, others weren't. Impossible to assess consensus here so procedural keep, can be renominated immediately should someone wish to. Daniel (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velicham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, found nothing big per WP:BEFORE. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only links I find are to youtube and non-RS blog/listicle sites. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has since been dealt with. Now I want to withdraw this, what is your new say? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to~~ Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography, where it is mentioned, and add some sources for verifiability. (NB I had redirected the page at some point, see page talk and history)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Edited: in light of the new sources added to the page by Srivin (the 1st one is page 3 and is a full article, although maybe much focused on legal matters), it looks like the page may be retained as a standalone article.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy notification to @Donaldd23:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography. As the original PRODder, I support a redirect. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)~~Keep based on new citations added. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography. No evidence that the subject meets GNG. Please ping me if good sources are located. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Comment - I'm not familiar enough with the new sources to change to support, but thanks for adding sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I thank Srivin for helping find sources to help expand the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose:. Pinging you at your request, although it's up to you to say if you find the new sources good enough. Also pinging @Donaldd23: and @Oaktree b: out of courtesy, sorry if that was unwanted.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that BennyOnTheLoose has commented, and the nominator i.e. me says withdraw, can we call it a day? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not my call. But no, we can't, because, although you have withdrawn the nomination, not everyone who participated has agreed the page should be kept as a standalone article. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 31 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaleesi (given name)[edit]

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

The subject is not notable enough to be featured as a stand-alone article on the encyclopedia. At best, a blurb can be added to the page Daenerys Targaryen if necessary. The excessive provided sources state that Khaleesi and Daenerys became popular baby and pet names in response to the show, and that's it. In addition, neither image has encyclopedic value (a random cat and a random model). ~~Overall, I am proposing Deletion of this article. TNstingray (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

To amend my original suggestion, this article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I am proposing a Redirect of this article and Daenerys (given name) to Daenerys Targaryen, using the information and sourcing to strengthen an existing article rather than diluting valuable information across three pages. Neither name is notable in and of itself: they are intrinsically tied to the character, and such information should be listed on the character article. I should note that the opposition is not rooted in policy beyond establishing that it is a notable fact that these are popular baby names; this does not warrant the existence of stand-alone articles in violation of WP:BADFORK and WP:CRYSTAL as established in the discussion below. TNstingray (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is referenced and is clearly notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to contain enough sustained WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG.User:Let'srun 02:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Also meets SUSTAINED with various pieces of coverage over many years ranging from 2014 to 2023. —siro χ o 03:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has sixteen proper sources (one with its actor commenting on the matter!) and the illustrations are proper; just because you don't like it, it seems like others do plenty. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contains enough WP:SIGCOV--Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 12:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the subject warrant its own unencyclopedic stub article rather than redirecting to a section under Daenerys Targaryen? That would greatly increase the value and conciseness of both subjects. I honestly should have boldly converted the page to a redirect rather than nominate the article here. TNstingray (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the article is about usage of the name, not the character, and it is referenced and very clearly notable. I would object to a redirect too. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of the name is exclusively derived from the popularity of the character. All of this would better serve the article and the encyclopedia to add a sentence or two to the Daenerys article. I think it is notable to say that the popularity of the character resulted in parents naming their kids after her. But Wikipedia does not need a stand-alone article to accomplish this. A redirect is a perfect compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies. TNstingray (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to a redirect. It is referenced and it is notable. Thus far, yours is the only vote in favor of deletion. I'd add that I am an inclusionist. There is absolutely no reason to delete articles that are cited and are of interest to readers. But this particular article meets every possible criteria for notability. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the information itself is notable, but this is a WP:BADFORK, specifically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that should never have been separated from Daenerys Targaryen. The value of the encyclopedia would objectively strengthen if the minuscule amount of relevant information included in Khaleesi (given name) and Daenerys (given name) were added back to Daenerys Targaryen. The subjects are 100% exclusively tied to the character, and should never have been separated into their own articles. While I must assume good faith, it is possible that the voting majority just saw the sourcing without considering the subject material, part of a larger recurring problem with Wikipedia bureaucracy.

Imagine creating a separate page for "Frodo (given name)", diluting the encyclopedia rather than simply adding a sentence to Frodo Baggins to describe the character's cultural legacy, strengthening an existing article.

WP:NOPAGE At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic) TNstingray (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on the Daenerys article apply here as well. This is an article about use of the name, not the character. When several thousand boys are named Frodo and the name gets a front page story in national media, the Frodo name article can be created too. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you want to defend an article that you created. But the names Daenerys, Khaleesi, and Frodo currently have absolutely no stand-alone value that warrants separation from the characters who inspired parents to name their children after them. The argument you are using now is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. In these cases, the usage of a name is 100% entirely, exclusively, intrinsically tied to the character. Such information should be used to strengthen the existing character articles. Currently, the only worthwhile, policy-based argument for keeping these articles is that they have sourcing, which I am completely fine with using to support and strengthen an individual point in the Daenerys Targaryen article. TNstingray (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree not because I created the articles but because the article is about the history and usage of the names, not the character. Articles about names have merit in and of themselves. i continue to oppose deletion or redirection for both.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having both a Daenerys (given name) article and a Khaleesi (given name) article seems like a rather misguided approach to covering this topic on Wikipedia. It is to my eye a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation. I would suggest consolidating the information at a single page, whether that be the Daenerys Targaryen character article, an article about given names from A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones (or even popular culture more broadly), or some other article altogether. It is uncontroversial that popular culture influences what names parents choose for their children, and creating separate articles for each individual example is not exactly a good idea. I don't know that this is the best venue for discussing the issue, but insisting that a poorly-conceived article should be kept (as opposed to merged, or some other solution) because of notability is not particularly helpful and doesn't lead to the encyclopaedia improving. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a broader name article that discusses the general popularity of the names from Game of Thrones, since several of the referenced articles mention more than one name that increased in use because of the books or TV series. i don't think deletion or redirection to the character article would be appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied text and sourcing from Daenerys (given name), which is virtually the exact same text from Khaleesi (given name), and pasted it into Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards, visualizing what this approach would look like as a compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies. I should also comment that Khaleesi by itself already redirects to Daenerys Targaryen. Consensus here demonstrates that the information itself is notable and should be kept, and as such I have amended my position. I understand wanting to defend one's article, but one of our priorities as editors on Wikipedia is considering how best to help the readers understand it, per WP:NOPAGE. It is clear to me that in this case, the way to do so is strengthening one article rather than separating out redundant information into two incredibly weak paragraphs.

To condense these conversations and respond to your last statement in the thread above, this article about a name does not have merit in and of itself; as I have already mentioned, any "history and usage of the names" entirely involves the character. There is absolutely zero notability outside of the character, and as such, it should be listed there and redirect there. TNstingray (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards per WP:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article". No compelling reason has been given to fork this content into its own article, especially two different ones. --Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article; where an encyclopedic article exists on a closely related broader topic, the need for a standalone page also needs to be demonstrated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be worth noting that Khaleesi entered the list of the 1,000 most popular baby names in the United States in 2014 according to the Social Security Administration (you can search for it at the bottom of this SSA page). It 2014, it was the 758th-most popular name, and as of 2022, was the 662nd-most popular. It peaked in 2015 at 550. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is referenced in the usage section of the articles and was one of the reasons why I created the article. It has had some news coverage on the basis that it’s a top 1,000 name and has been consistently in the top 1,000 names for a decade. Both of these are articles about names, why they are used and how many real people are called by them. I think the statistics would appear out of place in the article about the character. I’ve been creating categories over the past few months for different names. For this one, I thought Given names inspired by popular culture was appropriate. There are other names in this category that are now top 1,000 names and/or have a sustained history of use past the peak of whatever book or show influenced it originally. See also Anakin (given name) and Renesmee (name). Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that neither of those warrant their own articles either. There's a significant difference between an article like John (given name) with its lengthy historical and cultural context, versus a name recently created for a fictional character with notability that does not extend beyond the legacy of said fictional character. The mere fact that parents have named their children after a character does not justify the existence of a separate article for the name itself. I am all for strengthening character articles to reflect their cultural legacy, because we have not reached a point where the name has outpaced the character. The articles for Anakin and Renesmee should follow the same precedent established at these AFDs for Daenerys and Khaleesi. TNstingray (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We still disagree. These are articles about names, separate though related to the character articles, and should be included under the related categories or a See Also. They should not be merged or deleted. We could spend the next week arguing these points, though, and I don't have the time. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has gotten signifcant coverage. It seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITQuestions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case at all, as my position is rooted in several policies, guidelines, and essays. Assume good faith. If anything, the preeminent "keep" argument is WP:ILIKEIT. No one is denying the coverage or sourcing; the disagreement is where this information should be located. TNstingray (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer that it have a separate article or that there be a separate article on Game of Thrones names. it will look out of place to include statistics and some of the level of detail under the character article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daenerys Targaryen looks fine with this information added. TNstingray (talk) 13:18, 1 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. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leysingi[edit]

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:DICTIONARY, WP:1S. See also Thrall § Society. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. This topic has received signficant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, the Internet Archive and elsewhere. There are, in particular, entire periodical articles on this subject, such as: [27]. The article can be expanded beyond a definition. Since the topic is notable, the article is not redundant, quite apart from the fact that a freed former slave is not the same thing as a slave. James500 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Per significant coverage in litterature and mentions on internet.BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At worst, merge, but certainly not outright delete. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 2 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 Cricket World Cup. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2031 Cricket World Cup[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Bangladesh, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much WP:TOOSOON for this one. TH1980 (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is a confirmed future event. Hosts are decided. You dont delete the future olympics games pages do you? Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article. But, not even the teams participating in 2027 Cricket World Cup qualification has been completely announced yet. So, It's definitely Wikipedia:TOOSOON for 2031 Cricket World Cup. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, I'm not sure I've seen a written rule that says At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article before. That would be pretty awkward for sports championships, because the participants are often not known until days before the event. Is this your own (good) advice, or an actual rule that other editors have formally agreed to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am trying to point out that, there is no significant coverage available as for now to have its own article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend towards redirect to Cricket World Cup. Future events in **cricket** are rather more likely to end up being cancelled or changed than in other major sports in my experience. Given the little we know about the event, that can be summarised perfectly well at the CWC article - the article currently has four sources, one of which is very brief (abplive) and two of which address this tournament very briefly indeed - basically dealing with it along with a bunch of other prospective tournaments. The Hindu is then partially paywalled but appears to do more of the same from what I can see. I looked for news sources myself, but the majority of what I got was simply dealing with broadcasting rights - I didn't spend ages doing this but given that the 2027 article has a total of five sources, of which four are identical, I'm not hopeful that there's very much more out there just yet. Both have identical statements about "Points Carried Forward" that I can't find any source to verify - this has tended to be a feature of this sort of article at this sort of stage I'm afraid. In these circumstances and for *this* tournament and in the light of WP:OSE, I'm of the view that it's too early in this case for a dedicated article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See man one of the ct in 2021 got cancelled but others usually dont, and main world cups never will. they have been going on for decades and the bids have beend decided also. The page lets people know about the coming future tournaments, where its happening and how will it happen etc. If you check the cricket wc page, you will see that the formats which were identical are out, so thats not a worry. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, and the page as it is will be rapidly edited as the tournament comes closer. This can also have its own talk page being active so that it can stay for long till 2031. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cricket World Cup WP:TOOSOON, however a WP:ATD exists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be improved by editing for now, as there isn't anymore information available yet. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting without deletion is itself an Wikipedia:Alternative to deletion. It is not necessary to delete the page history to redirect it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Leoneix _(talk) 12:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a sensible WP:ATD. It's WP:TOOSOON, as no tournament information is known, and won't be known for a while yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the format isn't actually confirmed, sources on the format are about 2027 edition, not the 2031 edition: [28]. We shouldn't be reporting this as fact when it's WP:OR/based on assumptions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I **think** some aspects of the format apply to both 27 and 31 - although it's not super clear. The paragraph above the first diagram in the article ("The ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup format will have...") seems to suggest this. I don't think it supports some of the supposition, but there are other elements that seem to be verifiable - assuming a) they mean both 27 and 31; b) they don't change their minds; c) the ECB doesn't try to change everything after the current mess; d) the ICC don't decide that this one is too long anyway. It doesn't leave us with much of an article if we remove the guesswork at the end - maybe 8 lines, some of which is padding anyway. We could write a decent paragraph about it just now, but not much more to be honest Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At first it was announced that the Future tournaments will have the same format as 2023 CWC. But, It was later announced that 2027 CWC would have a new format. So, can't be sure about what will happen for 2031. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. That's annoyingly vague - I imagine that 2031 might well be effected by what happens in 2027 as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to ignore the fact that various discourse has been expressed by many about the longevity on the ODI format itself! I sincerely think this article might be propagating unclear/undecided information. 2402:E280:3D3D:4C8:55BB:5396:DE45:A50 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page may not be deleted. ICC had made an official announcement regarding this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthi2705 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 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. Whether or not certain fan theories are credible or well-supported by source material is not relevant with regards to establishing notability. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in the Batman franchise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The existence of this article doesn’t seem justified. It seems to be fundamentally based on certain affirmations by one single psychiatrist, Fredric Wertham. But Wertham proposed quite flawed and controversial theories about comics, and claimed that Batman had homosexual subliminal messages, among other things, in order to support his theory that comic books were perverting children. The rest of the article seems to be a collection of quotes from different people linking homosexuality and Batman, for different unrelated reasons. In addition, the end of the article states that there are several LGBT characters in the Batman comics, but that is not uncommon in comics in general nowadays. This aspect does not seem something specific to the Batman franchise, nor seems linked to previous information contained in the article. As a character that has existed for over 80 years in comic books, TV series, films, and all kind of media, it would be possible to write all kinds of articles in the format “Topic X in the Batman franchise”. It would be also possible to propose a link between any other major comic book character and homosexuality by following the same strategy of cherrypicking information that, on the whole, does not associate or relate in any meaningful way. If the creator of the character, Bob Kane, had been homosexual and had said that he created Batman with the purpose of subtly expressing that, we would have a strong case to support this article. But as it is, the connection between the topic of homosexuality and the Batman franchise seems forced and not justified, because the only aspect of the Batman mythos that could have consistently suggested an homosexual understone is simply that Batman and Robin are two men living together. It is not enough. (JohnMizuki (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument in this deletion justification reads to me as "This article isn't notable, it's just (insert list of the same things that make this article notable)". The fact that the theories are flawed does not make them not worth examining, as several sources have by your own admission dedicated paper and ink to this subject. Otherwise, we might as well delete the pages on e.g. Flat Earth, Young Earth creationism, and the like, because if they're not true, they can't be notable. On top of that, the assertion "As a character that has existed for over 80 years in comic books, TV series, films, and all kind of media, it would be possible to write all kinds of articles" is literally just WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Deletion reasoning feels inherently flimsy. KaiEnTai-DX-Fan (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable and well-referenced. The nominator says

The existence of this article doesn’t seem justified. It seems to be fundamentally based on certain affirmations by one single psychiatrist, Fredric Wertham.".

Fredric Wertham, is in fact cited in the lede:

Gay interpretations have been part of the academic study of the Batman franchise at least since psychiatrist Fredric Wertham asserted in his 1954 book Seduction of the Innocent that "Batman stories are psychologically homosexual".

But then the article cites (with 59 references) many subsequent discussions over the years in popular culture and the entertainment industry. Even the guy who played Robin acknowledged this issue. I doubt many of these people ever heard of Fredric Wertham.

This is a long article: 32,000+ bytes^[29] that's been edited by 342 editors^[30] over 14 years. It was nominated for deletion once before and kept–and that was when it was half the size and had half the references it has now.

Finally, ask any cynical male teenager and they'll tell you, "of course he's gay–everybody knows that".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus pic: Batbed.png

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the only evidence from the classic comics that keeps being provided to support the theory is 1 single decontextualized comic book panel, says it all. On the other hand, the evidence for a heterosexual Batman is overwhelming. JohnMizuki (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is notable and worth keeping. The OP's reasoning is fatally flawed.Historyday01 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well sourced at the beginning, then veers off into non-RS near the end. I'd perhaps rewrite, but seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The example image was drawn in a different time and Harley Quinn isn't that old a series. Maybe stop jumping the gun like this and instead focus on topics with some mileage behind 'em. If you're interested in writing about queers, Homosexuality in the Inca empire has, undoubtedly, SCADS of reliably-sourced articles written on it. There, go nuts. Americanfreedom (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination itself talks about what makes it notable, seems to feel like a WP:IDONTLIKEITQuestions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:01, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Zarei[edit]

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

A non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP: Notability (people). Doesn't cites references as well, therefore should be deleted.Zimidar (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zimidiar. Fails WP:GNG -- Arian (talk) 18:15, 2 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 14:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals–Mets rivalry[edit]

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

These two teams are not historical rivals. There's a lack of historical coverage to justify the article's existence. The information found in this article can be found elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Missouri, and New York. Nemov (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not demonstrate a "rivalry". It is a history of matchups between the Cardinals and Mets. Similar pages could be created for all possible MLB matchup histories. With the exception of genuine rivalries, these articles would be WP:FANCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a genuine rivalry? There are a few sources in the article that call it a rivalry. I am not a huge baseball guy so I could be missing something. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider any of the sources in the article to be from reliable sources, as they are mainly blogs or from unreputable websites, but that is just me. Let'srun (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the WSJ and KSDK articles? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @ULPS, there is definitely enough history and reputable source coverage of said history between the Mets and Cardinals to call it rivalry, and that is coming from a guy who is a big baseball fan. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources are a mix of ROUTINE or unreliable. Outside of what's in the article, this is the only thing I could find that is remotely close to GNG are this one: [31]. Everything else is FNACRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There does seem to be some coverage of this rivalry from pre-2000, as seen in [[32]], [[33]], [[34]] (part 1), [[35]] (part 2), [[36]] (part 1), [[37]] (part 2), and [[38]]. Would like to hear what others think, but I think there is enough GNG level coverage here. Let'srun (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOPAGE there's very little included in this article that's not in other articles. This section on the New York Mets article pretty much sums it up. There's very little reason for a separate article other than WP:FANCRUFT. Nemov (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with that assessment. It fails to cover the rivalry beyond a passing mention, when multiple reliable sources such as the Associated Press have given WP:SIGCOV. NOPAGE asks the question "Do related topics provide needed context?", which the Mets article fails to do, in my opinion. In totality, this article should remain as a Keep. Let'srun (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is included in this article that's not included elsewhere? There's already articles dedicated to the playoff series between the two clubs, extensive history articles, and articles on individual seasons as well. What context is this article bringing? Nemov (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well written and details important moments in Mets-Cardinals history. A rivalry is implied by a storied and tense history, which these teams undoubtedly have with each other. If anything, it needs to be updated to include more recent developments in this rivalry, such as the brawl between the two teams on April 27, 2022.76.117.162.190 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can write an article like this for every team matchup that has faced each other over many years... doesn't mean we should. To be worthy of it's own article it needs more long term and cultural significance.. for example Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cardinals are significant historical rivalries.. this one is not. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These "rivalry" articles are getting out of hand and starting to take up way too much space on the team pages. Only sustained rivalries are notable enough to warrant entire articles, and this is not. The Mets had (past tense) a brief rivalry with the Cardinals in the 80s and that's it. The article even admits as much. That's hardly noteworthy enough to dedicate an entire article to the topic. Delete. TempDog123 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Reviewing the sources posted earlier, Belleville News-Democrat is an interview with Ozzie Smith, an employee of the Cardinals, therefore not independent N; Newsday describes one incident of a player getting hit by a pitch and does not describe the teams as rivals, only using the term "rivalry" once in the intro (in a way that can describe any pair of teams) N, The first St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Herald-News are almost exclusively content from interviews of Cardinals and Mets employees so not independent N N, The second St. Louis Post Dispatch has some independent content describing "bad blood" between the two clubs and can possibly be considered GNG, ? but that article alone is not enough gfor a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 12:30, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raima Khan[edit]

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

Looks a Non-notable actress with non-notable roles in some TV Shows. Even the subject is not mentioned in the cast section of the Shows they did. Fails WP:GNG -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kolongastenna[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) 14:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a straight-forward failure of WP:V, since there is no way provided in the article (and I did search around on the statistics page linked there to try to find something that might contain information about it, without results) to verify that this place actually existed. FOARP (talk) 10:54, 30 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dasht-e Sar-e Gharbi Rural District[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No notable source. OpenStreetMap doesn't make it notable. Hongsy (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 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 (#02 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is the Dasht-e Sar-e Gharbi Rural District listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Basically per the sources on FA wiki. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a local government district which are normally notable per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 31 October 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 14:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganj Konar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#08 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Ganj Konar listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. - same comment as elsewhere regarding the history of creation of these articles and abadi being explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V. There is simply no way of verifying the existence of this "village" provided in the article. This is listed in the census as a abadi, which Carlossuarez46 negligently interpreted as "village", when in reality abadi are often just named location around which Iranian census takers count the census, meaning that many of them are actually bridges, pumps, factories, etc. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. FOARP, thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy, thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easy call for all the reasons others have mentioned above. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:54, 31 October 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 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kahur Abbas[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#08 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Kahur Abbas listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

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

@A. B. - This is an abadi article created by Carlossuarez46. See particularly this discussion where 13,157 of them were deleted and the ARBCOM case related to this. Abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V. Simply put, no source is provided in the article that would allow you to confirm the existence of this "village". Listing as an abadi in the Iranian census is not evidence of being a populated place since Iranian census takers simply use the names of shops/bridges/pumps/farms/etc. as the reference points when they take the census - for this reason they are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. FOARP, thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy, thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:22, 30 October 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 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tazehabad-e Tumar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#24), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Tazehabad-e Tumar listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. - This is an abadi article created by Carlossuarez46. See particularly this discussion where 13,157 of them were deleted and the ARBCOM case related to this. Abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is impossible to confirm the existence of this "village" so this is a straight-forward failure of WP:V. Abadi are simply locations at which the census was taken, and can include petrol stations, pumps, farms, etc., and are therefore excluded from GEOLAND for this reason since they are not populated places per se. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. FOARP, thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy, thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 30 October 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 14:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseynabad-e Alam[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, another low effort article.

Linking to an .xls file doesn't make the article meet GNG Hongsy (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#29), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Hoseynabad-e Alam listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. - Just a note that we had a massive, massive problem with the Iranian census having places listed as abadi that Carlossuarez46 created "village" articles out of. The problem is that abadi in the Iranian census are just places where the census was counted, including petrol stations, pumps, bridges, factories etc. and many of them aren't populated. Something like 15,000 of them have been deleted so far. See particularly these discussions:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed

User_talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive_13#Places_in_Iran

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agro-Industry Complex

FOARP (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woa so much popcorn 🍿 on that arbitration page. Looks like these pages were missed out in the large batch deletion. Hongsy (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ask an admin to redo the large batch deletion? Hongsy (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Hongsy (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP

or maybe we can combine the multiple noms into a single nom? is that possible! Hongsy (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These weren't missed, instead people erred on the side of caution when the bulk deletion was done. So only the articles that could be identified with near-certainty as being related to non-villages were deleted, and more grey-zone articles like this one were left alone just in case they related to actual villages. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing at the location cited in the map, which points to an empty field between two villages, neither of which has this name. This is therefore a straight-forward failed verification. Simply being an abadi in the Iranian census does not deliver a pass of GEOLAND since abadi are explicitly excluded from it (see above for why). Similarly, simply being a listed in GNS does not give a GEOLAND pass as GNS since it's designation of places as "populated" is unreliable. That leaves us with absolutely nothing with which to verify that this supposed village actually exists. FOARP (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. FOARP, thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy, thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalevakanda[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, no valid source (again again...).

Low effort article with no notability. Hongsy (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails verification per WP:V. The only source provided in the article is a very general link to the Sri Lankan office of statistics. It is not at all clear where you are supposed to look on that very extensive website in order to find information about the subject. After clicking through a number of windows I tried downloading the 2011 Housing and Population survey from the website but it failed to open, and I also note it is described as being based on a 5% sample which makes me wonder if it really will contain any information about this supposed village as apparently only 5% of Sri Lanka was surveyed. The location given in the article is a random location in the village of Kawudupelella. From experience, this article was probably created based on data from GEONet Names Server, which is an unreliable source for this purpose. FOARP (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#GEOnet Names Server (GNS) Thanks for this link. very helpful Hongsy (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP

Thanks for going through each nom in detail. Is there really a need to nominate the other Iran villages, one by one, or can we ask admin to bulk delete? Hongsy (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that whilst it was easy to get consensus to delete the unpopulated abadi, and the abadi with names that clearly indicated that they weren't villages, the remaining ones are harder to get consensus to delete.

For the location articles sourced only to GNS in e.g., Sri Lanka, the objection is always going to be that some of them may be improvable, despite many, many of them failing verification. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pottallinda[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, no valid source (again...) Hongsy (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - Fails verification for the same reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahalevakanda. Particularly, no source is given where information about the topic can be located and the location given in the article is empty forest in the village of Battagolla. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 30 October 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 14:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kirk[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't believe the single source coverage here passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Bilateral relations, Finland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Few WP:ATD's in this case. For this subject, a clear ATD would be a redirect to his father Peter Kirk (English politician). Alternatively, this article can be deleted and Matthew Kirk (artist) can be moved to this title. Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable and this one clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for Finnish language sourcing, and while there's a bunch of quotes (think "UK Ambassador Kirk said so-and-so about such-and-such" in a longer story about some event), the only even vaguely useful bits for this AfD I found are the following, from best to worst:

[39] 350 word bio/interview about Kirk quitting as an ambassador and starting at Vodafone. Despite its length, it's complete fluff with pretty much no encyclopedic value beyond the first two sentences, which give age, length of service as ambassador, and say that he is indeed starting at Vodafone.
[40] Finnish News Agency press release about Kirk's successor. Consists of four sentences, of which one is about Kirk.
[41] The whole story is a single sentence: Matthew Kirk has invited for a visit demonstrators opposing the Iraq War, and has organized events to familiarize people with the embassy. That's it. That's the article.

There's also a Kauppalehti story at [42], which I can't access it thru the paywall, but based on the 1 minute reading time, it's nothing extensive. Probably just regurgitates some press release, as so much of Kauppalehti coverage does. In totality, delete absent further sourcing. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewpotdeniya[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, no valid source. Hongsy (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Effectively unsourced, nothing with this name at the location given in the article, fails WP:V. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 1 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. ✗plicit 14:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalnadan-e Pain[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Source is dead. Hongsy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random link to an .xls file doesn't make it notable. Hongsy (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#01), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Kalnadan-e Pain listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. - Please note abadi are excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. FOARP, thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy, thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 30 October 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 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telihigala[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice to recreation if actually sourced. There's just not enough here to validate this article. Mangoe (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V. No information provided in the article which would allow you to confirm the existence of this place - a general link to the very large Sri Lankan statistics website, on which I cannot find any information about this place, is not sufficient. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 31 October 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taygete citranthes[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N. Hongsy (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Hongsy (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NSPECIES with not just a valid name in published sources but additional description. It's not clear why these pages are being nominated at AfD. KoA (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems well-sourced enough to pass WP:NSPECIES. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No indication of invalidity. @Hongsy: would you please stop with these bad nominations? Some understanding of what constitutes a valid name is required before wading into this area. This is getting disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per WP:NSPECIES

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All species are notable and pass WP:NSPECIES. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 October 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. WP:SK3/snow. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoneuroterus mazandarani[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES. it doesn't have a taxonbar. Hongsy (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Hongsy (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That someone hasn't added a taxonbar or wikidata yet isn't a reason for deletion, that's a WP:FIXIT situation. The species clearly meets WP:NSPECIES having a valid name and in reliable sourcing, so this isn't even one we'd normally be debating. KoA (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use some work but is properly sourced; this is a recognized species. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No indication of invalidity. @Hongsy: would you please stop with these bad nominations? Some understanding of what constitutes a valid name is required before wading into this area. This is getting disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per WP:NSPECIES

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or speedy keep?) for all the sensible policy-based reasons above jengod (talk) 22:36, 28 October 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 14:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binder Pal Fateh[edit]

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

This article is about person that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. There are claims of doing many different things but the main claim to notability is being the lyricist for a single song from one film. Sourcing in the article and any coverage I could find simply credits him for the lyrics and provides no significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about person which is very down to earth and not take any credit as such as he is a news anchor but not in news, song writer but one single song released yet and many more in the loop. He is a close friend of mine and i can claim that he is a deserve to on wikipedia.

Thanks. Harmangeet Singh (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this has been declined several times at AfC, and finally rejected. The sources remain woefully inadequate, although the author has had seven months to come up with something better. No evidence of notability, therefore one can only assume the subject is fundamentally non-notable. (Also likely COI issues, which while not deletion grounds do mean this should not have been unilaterally moved into the main space.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I am not any proffesional wikipedia page author, i just learn from you and going ahead there. i provide links regarding person's profession.Please consider it genuine and keep it as an article. Harmangeet Singh (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable individual with little to no critical coverage of their work; briefly mentioned here [43]. Rest is not helpful in establishing notability. Award won seems non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of good sources show this article fails to meet our essential notability criteria for living people. The first comment here by the article's creator sums up many of the issues here. Wikipedia is not here to promote one's friends who happen to be on television. If independent reliable sources do eventually write about this person in detail and in depth, then there could be an article about them. But we do not have those sources right now. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Poetry, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a poet, journalist, actor or singer. No evidence of passing WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources used in this article (or that I can find online) show any semblance of passing WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject does not passes WP:BASIC, i also fixed some word mistakes i the article. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Either the creator wrote about himself or is close to the subject as they have only contributed on this page of a non-notable individual. dxneo (talk) 13:49, 3 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. ✗plicit 14:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanushkodi (film)[edit]

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

Incomplete film, whose "production itself" is not notable per WP:NFF and lacks "significant coverage" per WP:NFSOURCES. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Priyadarshan_filmography#1981-1990, where it is mentioned and add 'unreleased' with a note.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kollavarsham 1975[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF and WP:NFSOURCES as non-notable, incomplete, unreleased film, lacking significant coverage to establish notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 28 October 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 12:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panchapandavar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF, non-notable unreleased film with scarcity of WP:NFSOURCES. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreleased film with lack of sources. Though two sources are mentioned, they are not properly cited and are inaccessible for verification. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jayan#Filmography, where it is mentioned, Jayan being the top billing name of this completed film, as the intro clearly states.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no reliable sources, means non-notable production. Beside, people searching for more notable 1999 film Panchapandavar will end up in Jayan's filmography. Google search for Panchapandavar also shows results mostly of the 1999 film. So, it would be a bad redirect, and also violates WP:PRIMARYFILM since it is not the primary film.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough then Keep as a disambiguation page with at least the 2 films mentioned above, to help the reader. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM, no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV found. BEFORE showed some database and promo (not much), but nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 16:08, 2 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. ✗plicit 12:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NetLingo[edit]

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

Besides the WSJ piece back in 2009, everything else are just fleeting mentions. Does not meet the multiple (and/or) sustained in-depth coverage bar for GNG. Sohom (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Companies, Internet, and Websites. Sohom (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even the reference from The New York Times fails WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot locate anything in a search to show how this would meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 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. ✗plicit 12:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Asia Climate Partnership[edit]

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

Article has few citations, all of which are broken so information cannot be verified. Seems like it will be impossible to update as there is no recent information on this topic - there is no independent coverage of the Partnership, and the only information I can find on it was last updated in 2009. As such, I feel the article doesn't meet notability criteria, and there is no info available to update it to meet quality/accuracy criteria. OliverEastwood talk 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed source #2 by adding an archive link, but translating archived pages is not possible so I cannot read it. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 14 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!} 06:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Searching for it in Korean ("동아시아기후파트너십") shows numerous respectable independent sources covering it. It's unfortunate the article is poorly sourced though; it needs some work but I think it's a notable enough topic. (I probably won't do the work) toobigtokale (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 28 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Howe (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Just worked on independent promotions (one exception, when he appeared a few times in TNA). No in-deep coverage sabout him in sources, just WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 14 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!} 06:58, 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!} 07:27, 28 October 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. Not salting as suggested because the article has only been recreated once (2nd AfD ended with no consensus). RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be the sole reliable source about the topic. I checked the previous AfDs and they also did not present any reliable sourcing. The article appears to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of multiple reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly I wasn't able to find much on this in my searches beyond what the nominator already mentioned. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable with many reliable sources. बिनोद थारू. Another reliable source: https://ygorganization.com/cd-order-filed-against-dueling-network/ and another https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/ and another https://gamerant.com/yu-gi-oh-trading-card-game-ways-changed-since-1999/#rise-and-fall-of-dueling-network and another https://www.neoseeker.com/news/27662-konami-summons-the-dark-magician-for-three-new-yu-gi-oh-games-in-2016/ (passing mention) and another https://twinfinite.net/features/best-yugioh-game-in-years/ (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions don't count towards notability. YGOrganization looks like a blog, with pseudonymous contributors, a request for Patreon donations, and the site running on Wordpress. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, anything from Game Rant doesn't count towards notability, and Twinfinite is an unreliable source. QuietCicada - Talk 02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to count how many that leaves in total which is 2 or more with significant coverage. The original one and this one https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/. And probably more if dig deeper (more than 1 minute I spent). बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BitDefender even says it's a blog in the URL, so it's not a reliable source per WP:BLOG. That leaves, as I said, a single reliable source. Even if we assume it is reliable, the significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail isn't there, since these are about a single event that affected the site rather than the site itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You are spreading misinformation about policy. WP:BLOG you just linked references WP:NEWSBLOGS, which reads:

"Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." बिनोद थारू (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BitDefender is not a "news organization", it is a company that makes antivirus tools. Thus, that does not apply, because the writers are not employed in a professional context by a news organization.

Accusing people of spreading misinformation is an WP:ADHOMINEM, please think twice before using such highly charged language or it will just boomerang back to you if the evidence of ill intent is not found by others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is file under the "INDUSTRY NEWS", making https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/ a news article. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Joe down the street can also start up a blog where they post news. That doesn't make Joe a reliable news source.

Either way, the point is moot, because BitDefender is just quoting Vice for the entire article and admit as much. There is no new take here and it shouldn't count as a separate source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like others said, first two sources are blogs/unreliable, GameRant and Twininfinite aren't a significant coverage of the subject, NeoSeeker is literally just a name drop... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only see the one RS linked in the nom statement – I would consider the Bitdefender article/blog/whatever linked above the same source, as Bitdefender's piece seems to be simply rereporting of the Motherboard article. Tollens (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Since this is the third time that the article has been created in good faith by different people over the course of eleven years and it's still not meeting notability, we should salt it to prevent this from happening again. QuietCicada - Talk 12:24, 4 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 12:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verrell Yustin Mulia[edit]

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

Fails N:BAD Stvbastian (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was created when the guideline (N:BAD) was lenient and now since the revision of that guideline to include just BWF Super Series and BWF World Tour, this subject is no longer fit for inclusion until and unless they reach a final of aforementioned tournaments. Moreover this article fails WP:GNG as no good sources were found by a Google search. zoglophie^•talk• 19:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 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!} 07:25, 28 October 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. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benniganahalli metro station[edit]

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

Fails GNG as no SIGCOV can be found. Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Timothytyy (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothytyy and @Spiderone,

Pls let me know what more useful information or this so called "SIGCOV" needs to be there so that this page will be there in the long run. Cause all the information regarding this metro station have been provided. There is no need to add extra unnecessary information for the audience. All they expect is simple and crisp neat information which is there in that page. And I personally feel whatever information is provided there, it's very useful for other people travelling to this city and getting to know which place leads to where and all. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, SIGCOV exists, see e.g. [44]. I am on ipad now, and it is difficult for me to add useful info from this source to the article, but I will try not to forget to do it when I am back.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no new content has been added to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: no individual SIGCOV added since nomination. Timothytyy (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is demonstratably incorrect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter All 13 sources in the article only provide coverage for the metro line, not the station itself. Is my statement incorrect? The source you provided in this discussion looks like ROUTINE, providing only a very brief intro to the not-so-newsworthy baggage scanners and how the station brings convenience. Also, the website doesn't seem to have a reputation for fact checking. I don't understand why GNG is met when only one short source provides coverage for the subject itself and it is ROUTINE. If you can find better sources that provide detailed non-routine coverage to the station, welcome to add it to the article. Timothytyy (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says that the station was opened later than other stations of the line. Now, concerning my source, what else would you like to see for the stations? This is valid information, and constitutes SIGCOV. Note that I have not yet added it to the article. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations: Fails GNG, routine news doesn't show notability. // Timothy :: talk 16:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @TimothyBlue,

All information regarding this station has been added. What more information is needed for you to know? As @Ymblanter says that it has constituting SIGCOV, I request you to maintain this page. Santosh4118 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Santosh4118 The only source given is routine coverage and does not contribute to GNG. Also, the problem is not about the amount of info. Timothytyy (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources sufficient to pass GNG. Don't agree with that part of the rationale put forward in the nomination of "no useful information is provided" — purely subjective. Don't hold with the interpretation of routine coverage put forward here. Routine coverage is about an event, soon forgotten as evidenced by no sustained coverage. There has been coverage on this station from planning, construction and opening. Strictly separating the line from the station in coverage doesn't make sense as the two are inextricably linked. The station is a major part of the infrastructure of the line. References to Benniganahalli in the sources are to the station, there isn't a place called Benniganahalli, just a lake. Admittedly, sources are not brilliant but this is overridden by the premise that Wikipedia readers would likely expect to see an article on this station, based on similar metro stations in other cities having their own article. It's not some minor railway halt used by few, but an access point to the metro used daily by thousands. Rupples (talk) 17:50, 4 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 Closed by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Content not in English. Obvious duplication of Madhab Chandra Jena (AfD discussion), Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena, and even Wikipedia:Madhab Chandra Jena at one point. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP (single ref is a dead Google link, so BLP PROD would be rejected), fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE showed nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing. Could not find a matching article on other Wikipedias, so ineligeble for CSD A2 (link in Language section states the article does not exist). I considered A7 but decided AfD would be more appropriate because of the duplicate articles and SPI issue (see below).

A machine translation would still be an unsourced or improperly sourced BLP.

Editor has created an English version which has also been nom for deletion by @FatCat96: at Madhab Chandra Jena.

Finally see SPIs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena#Suspected sockpuppets and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena/Archive for info.

Because of the above info in SPI, request SALT after deletion for both article titles. // Timothy :: talk 05:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Non English. Why isn't there a CSD category? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:A2 needs revising, right now its not very helpful. (PS: Hope your doing well Tim) // Timothy :: talk 07:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly check the authentication of the page before deletion.It should not be discrimnated based on emotions like it is being created in English or any other language,suckpuppet etc. it should be fact based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing emotional about wanting articles in the English Wikipedia to be in English. Even if it were written in a language I could read (French, Spanish or Portuguese) I would still vote for deletion. Athel cb (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If any edit or revision required kindly suggest or contribute how to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A10, a duplicate of Madhab Chandra Jena, just in a different language. --Belbury (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This appears to be written in Oriya, and has no place in the English Wikipedia. Athel cb (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queye[edit]

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

Recreated after draftification, I cannot find any mention of the company outside of primary sources. Don't think there is anything to redirect to and don't think there is anything to be merged. Justi yaya 03:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Websites, Kazakhstan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are!

https://thesearchenginereviewblog.wordpress.com/2023/09/12/queye-the-kazakh-search-engine-is-proving-to-be-the-best-to-come-out-of-asia/

https://qel.ink/IHLs1D (in Russian)

Technically, these don't count since they're tweets, but I'll leave them here anyways since they aren't made by Queye:

https://x.com/JadenHeinzel/status/1709760104646557939?s=20 Icantthinkofaname22 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These look a lot like WP:Blogs to me Justi yaya 10:14, 22 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!} 04:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The article is fine. Icantthinkofaname22 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Icantthinkofaname22 How would the subject meet the inclusion criteria of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Justi yaya 07:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to show notability Flurrious (talk) 17:43, 29 October 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 Monster Hunter. The concerns raised regarding lack of SIGCOV are much more substantial than a WP:VAGUEWAVE. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felyne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Going through this again, but after several months of trying to find sources that provide significant coverage discussing the Felyne as a fictional race and any impact outside of the games, I've exhausted all resources.

Outside of a large number of promotional efforts on the part of Capcom, any articles discussing the characters are strictly in the vein of "how to" guides that are discussing them solely in the context of the particular game, and don't present any WP:SIGCOV discussion about the characters themselves. Any promotional efforts are also not entirely unique to the Felyne as Capcom does such heavily: case in point, the article discussing the collaboration with Japanese police using Felyne images on merchandise was similarly done prior with Ace Attorney characters.

Additionally looking in the related Monster Hunter film showed no sources either outside of the brief one listed: the character simply isn't discussed in that context either, let alone the race as a whole. Ultimately similar to the case of characters like the metroids or inklings, they're *known* about, and promoted a lot, but not discussed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator - we've already been over this in the last AfD, but there is no rule against using a how-to guide with secondary commentary as a source, only a rule against Wikipedia articles being game guides, which is not the same thing. Game guides are commonly used as WP:RS as long as their content is stated in an encyclopedic way. I fully admit the article's sourcing is not super strong, but with an obvious merge target, that is not a matter to be discussed in a deletion debate, and the article can stand on its own with notability if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also found another recent article on the topic that hasn't yet been integrated into the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the how-to guide is not offering reception but simply illustrating the gameplay elements of the race in the context of the games, and not even just them specifically. Also the VG247 article is simply saying the sounds used came from the developer's own cats, and is more about the development of Monster Hunter Rise. Additionally it offers no feedback itself on the race on the part of the writer.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's basically more of a WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument, because in-depth analysis of the subject isn't technically required for notability, just an explanation of it that covers it in detail. I'll try to see if I can find examples that show the importance of the subject.

The article is decidedly not about the general development of Rise. Its subtitle is "Felynes are Monster Hunter staples at this point – and this fictional race of cats Capcom created has a tangible link to our world.". It starts with an overview of felynes in general, not just in Rise. And it continues to say "From the original Monster Hunter to the current Monster Hunter Rise: Sunbreak, we have basically used the same cat sounds". This is not Rise specific and is just describing something Capcom used to create the felynes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded reception somewhat to demonstrate that INDISCRIMINATE is indeed passed by the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep viewing the current state of the article holistically, there's reception, merchandise, development, multiple forms of media. That is, most of the article is not dedicated to fictional summary, the article doesn't fall into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The subject meets WP:GNG with sources in the article. —siro χ o 03:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The reception etc. is based on passing mentions. This fails WP:SIGCOV requirement of GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monster Hunter. No WP:SIGCOV about the characters themselves, and therefore fails GNG. Charcoal feather (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you mean about the lack of SIGCOV. There is a filled out reception section about the fictional race, which the article is about. SIGCOV has been clearly shown. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Welp, reception seems like mostly passing mentions and it is flimsy enough to pass WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not specified exactly how the reliable, significant sources already in the article are "passing mentions", then this is simply a WP:VOTE rather than an argument. AfD is not a vote, if there is proof of notability then evidence must be shown that it is insufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:35, 25 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!} 04:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:PRESERVE. Doesn't have separate notability, but an WP:ATD is available. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd have to ask the closing admin to consider the fact that all of the redirect votes amount to a WP:VAGUEWAVE but do not explain why the article is not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tapiwa Marobela[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Botswana. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 28 October 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 Non-compete clause. If there's anything an editor wants to merge, they can do so editorially at their own discretion from the history behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forced retention[edit]

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

This does not look right as the last example is about an army and obviously an army is not a company. I don't see how anyone in a democracy could be forced to stay in a company except in wartime. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This didn't even require any thought. Nom's argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No such thing in business, except possibly in a dictatorship. Military retention is a viable topic, but this article has very little to do with it. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:08, 6 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!} 23:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a valid concept. We aren't talking about physical force here, but rather about economic pressure: employment contracts that keep people from accepting employment with a competitor have the effect of forcing retention, unless the employee is prepared to do without an income. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compete clause covers that, and people can switch fields so as not "to do without an income". Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have a well-sourced article Slavery in the 21st century Chidgk1 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge ~~to Employee retention~~. Redundant, describes Employee retention, Non-compete clause and Golden handcuffs in a single article. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merge to any related article. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Non-compete clause. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like everyone has a different idea about what to do with this. Does anyone want to second one of these merge suggestions, or no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to non-compete clause. The employee retention article is terrible itself. Golden handcuffs seems more about carrots, whereas the article in question is more about sticks. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is there worth merging? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be anything. But to the extent there is that is relevant... DMacks (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Ospina[edit]

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

While Ospina is a very popular OnlyFans creator, he doesn't have any source of notability beyond that. Some of the sources read more like a promo than as actual reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Colombia. Skynxnex (talk) 03:47, 28 October 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and no indication that further discussion will yield any different of a result. I note that many, though not all, of the "keep" !votes presented little or no policy-based rationale for keeping the article. This close is without prejudice to renomination for deletion after a reasonable period for reflection on the discussion. BD2412 T 00:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan Media Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References do not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT and a WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any that do. CNMall41 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~...:Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I am disappointed that rather than start a discussion on the Talk page of this article, in the spirit of collegial collaboration, that less than an hour after moving this article to the mainspace, you have chosen to leap straight in and seek deletion. I refer here to WP:BEFORE (that you reference), specifically point AC2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Nevertheless, here we are. I would respectfully ask that you revisit the page, to which I have added more information and references, and ask that you remove the AfD. References include three newspapers, the government's website and a scholarly chapter from an edited collection about Asia, which is entirely devoted to the history and importance of BMF. Thankyou Doctor 17 (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the book chapter which could be used to make a case, can you point out the others that meet WP:ORGCRIT? The current page is referenced to the organization itself along with other sources that merely mention them (single mention in each of the 3 Kuensel Online sources) and the rest fail ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book chapter and other sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Jfire (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the state of the article now is very different from the first hour of its existence, the improvements since then show adequate coverage. JarrahTree 05:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Source assessment is below. If anyone is able to point out the ones that meet WP:ORGCRIT I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Since this is an organization, it must meet WP:NCORP. The main issue here is not the number of references, but the fact most are failing WP:CORPDEPTH.

1. Civil Society Organizations Authority, this is a listing verifying the organization’s existence. Nothing in-depth.

2. Bhutan Media Foundation, this is the organization’s own website so not independent.

3. The Changing Role of Asia, this is the book reference described above. If we can verify this isn’t self-published, I think it would meet WP:ORGCRIT.

4. No link so unable to review.

5. TheBhutanese, this is about the state of affairs in Bhutan and talks about the organization implementing a plan. However, it mentions them in context with the plan and does not talk about the organization in detail so fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

6. Bhutan Media Foundation, also the organization website so not independent.

7. The Bhutanese, same reference as #5 above.

8. Kuensel, discusses a guide it created but does not talk about the organization in-depth.

9. bbs.bt, unsure of the reliability of the source. However, this is a routine announcement of them releasing a guide. Nothing in-depth about the organization.

10. TheBhutanese, routine announcement of it launching its website and app. Again, nothing in-depth about the organization.

11. Kuensel, Mentions the foundation one time as a source for information. Passing mention and nothing in-depth.

12. Business Bhutan, Also fails CORPDEPTH. This quotes a statistic they put together about social media.

13. bbs.bt, same assessment as the reference above. Quotes their social media statistic but nothing in-depth about he organization.

14. Kuensel, a single mention about them starting the Thimphu Press Club. The rest of the information in the reference is about the club.

15. Kuensel, same publisher as reference #14 and same assessment as it was published on the same day and talks about the Thimphu Press Club, not in-depth about BMF.

Out of the 15 references listed above, only one likely meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you CNMall41 for your detailed response and reasonableness in offering to withdraw your AfD according to multiple sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT..

"A company… is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject…Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

The following refs meet the criteria:

3. The Changing Role of Asia, is a chapter in a scholarly book, published in English by Poland’s largest academic publishing house, Adam Marszalek.

5. & 7. This article is about the state of media in Bhutan and in that context discusses BMF’s role as central to media development.

8. The entire article is about BMF's work, the guideline for reporting on women and children that they created for the media in Bhutan.

9. BBS.bt is the national broadcaster, the Bhutanese version of BBC, which meets reliability criteria. Coverage of its activities by the national broadcaster is not “a routine announcement”, its a news event. The entire article is about BMF's work, the toolkit it produced to counter misinformation, a global media problem.

10. & 12. These are two independent newspapers covering the news event of the release of BMF's 61-page social media report, funded by the Asia Foundation. It is a significant misrepresentation to describe these news stories as "quotes a statistic they put together about social media".

14. & 15. These two articles, in the national newspaper, cover BMF launching Thimphu Press Club, clearly a significant event, attended by the Prime Minister and European MPs. The Press Club is a BMF initiative and is further example of their activities.

Please note, the reference numbers you provide no longer match the article as another editor has added further references since you posted, but I have responded to your numbering.

I hope you will revisit the site and reconsider your recommendation. Respectfully, Doctor 17 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of these would pass WP:ORGCRIT except maybe the book excerpt. For example, as you stated about 5 & 7 (which are the same reference), it talks about the state of media in Bhutan. It says the BMF released a study with a strategic plan. What does it say "about" the agency (what does it do, when was it founded, etc.)? You say #8 is entirely about BMF's work. That is not true. It talks about a guideline release by BMF, NOT about BMF. For WP:SIRS, the references must address "the subject of the article directly and in depth." These references do not. They mention a study and guideline released by the organization, not the organization itself. I think that is where the disconnect is coming in here. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think CNMall41 that you are applying the "significant coverage" aspect of WP:ORGCRIT incorrectly. Under your application, each reference would need to amount to a profile of the organisation. This is not the definition as per WP:ORGCRIT. Rather, it states that "significant" means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Clearly these are credible, independent sources (a range of newspapers, the national broadcaster, an academic publisher), providing coverage of their activities. They go beyond the profile you seem to favour, to demonstrate both the activities of the organisation as well as the extensive media coverage such activities receive.

I also dont understand your intransigence in recognising the credibility of the sources. Again you state "maybe the book excerpt". Please note it is written by a media scholar, in a book published by an academic publisher, and covers all of those things about the foundation that you seek - its history, what it does etc. There can be no doubt about its veracity.

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this guideline, how it came to be. The wiki community propose this extra caution under WP:ORGCRIT to stop Wikipedia being used for advertising and self-promotion, particularly among commercial organisations. The BMF is clearly not such an organisation and this is clearly not advertising or self-promotion.

I ask again, respectfully, that you remove this AfD. Doctor 17 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After years of working on company Wikipedia pages and participating in similar AfDs, I am familiar with how ORGCRIT, SIRS, and the interpretations of both. It is not my intransigence, but my familiarity with how it has been applied by editors over the years. We will just agree to disagree at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Impro (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Phuentsho (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific comments on the available sourcing, and the analysis of it, would be very helpful. Stating "Keep" (or "Delete", or anything else) with no reasoning why is, frankly, not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Unlike many of you, I'm not an expert in WP:ORGCRIT, but the article does seem to meet WP:NGO criteria 1 and 2. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Copyvio is borderline. Some re-wording would probably be a plus if the consensus is to keep the article. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not borderline, that's a copyvio. I'll go and remove the section. JMWt (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good to know. Still learning the terrain here and not always certain where the redlines are drawn (or the mines are buried). I also tend towards improvement/inclusion of good faith contributions (unless something is truly rubbish – which clearly this ain't). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the book chapter mentioned above, The Kathmandu Post put this out (syndicated by HT Media): [45]. This should meet ORGIND and CORPDEPTH, to demonstrate CORP. —siro χ o 04:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On November 7, User:Actualcpscm closed this AfD, believing it was an uncontentious decision to keep. User:CNMall41 requested he revert that decision, which he agreed to. In the interests of transparency and completeness, I add here a link to that discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Actualcpscm#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhutan_Media_Foundation. Doctor 17 (talk) 00:12, 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Editors can work on improving this article and its sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Smith Henderson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated biography of a lawyer and politician. Although this is written and sourced differently enough to not be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of previously deleted content, it still isn't showing improved evidence of satisfying notability criteria.
This does include more content about his legal career than the first time, but still stakes his notability as a lawyer primarily on (a) purely local crime coverage in his hometown that briefly glances off his existence as a lawyer in the process of being principally about the criminals, and (b) purely local run of the mill human interest coverage of the type that any reasonably prominent local figure would merely be expected to receive in his local media (e.g. marriage announcements and death notices), with absolutely nothing that suggests a credible reason why he would be a special case of uniquely greater notability than other lawyers.
Meanwhile, the attempted notability as a politician is still staked on non-winning candidacies that do not satisfy WP:NPOL -- the only new thing that's been added is one piece of speculation about a cabinet appointment that didn't materialize, but "was briefly speculated as a possible appointment to a position he wasn't actually appointed to" is not a notability boost either.
Otherwise, the remaining sources are tangentially verifying stray facts about his father and his son, which don't help to build Gordon's notability at all — notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so he isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his father and son have Wikipedia articles, but there still just isn't anything here which counts as strong evidence that he's earned permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia in his own right. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KC who was so prominent that he was a leading candidate for Attorney General of Ontario. I think he's probably notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KC would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this, and "was speculated as a potential candidate for appointment to an office he wasn't actually appointed to" is no part of any Wikipedia notability criterion at all (especially when that speculation is coming from the local newspaper in his hometown and not from anybody with any real "insider" knowledge). Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appointed King's Counsel which in that time was a big honor. As a lawyer multiple sources said he was involved in every important criminal case of the time and there are hundreds of news articles from reputable newspapers about him. As a politician he was prominent on the political scene and was a community leader in the liberal party despite not holding office. -- PD8 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sources in the article represent "important" criminal cases, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Men of Today and Tomorrow, it says, "He has been engaged during the last five years in all the important criminal cases here." In Two Local Barristers Appointed King's Counsel By Ontario Govt. it says, "Dr. Gordon Henderson for many years has been very prominent as a criminal lawyer and has had many notable cases." PD8 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And which sources establish the individual "importance" or "notability" of any specific criminal case? It's not enough that one source asserts that his cases were important, if we can't find sufficient sourcing to validate the notability of any specific case — which case was he ever involved in that was significant or important or prominent enough that we could justifiably create and keep a Wikipedia article about the case and/or the defendant who was on trial? Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was senior counsel for Louis Auger, accused of rape. The court case was national news, with books being written about it: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781442689510-003/html. As you asked, the defendant does have a Wikipedia article, and it is well-sourced that Gordon Henderson was his lawyer. PD8 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perPD8 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Bookworm857158367 (talk)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gnewspapers in Canada shows many articles when he died, expanding upon his career and importance to the community [46] He was covered in Ottawa, Toronto and in French-language sources in Quebec. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly the multiple obituaries make him notable. --hroest 21:21, 3 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. Not a strong deletion rationale, by the way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air entrainment[edit]

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

Autoclaved aerated concrete is a much better article so perhaps we don't need this unsourced article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic has quite a few publications in peer-reviewed literature: [47][48][49] to give three. I think the concept is distinct enough from autoclaved aerated concrete to allow for a distinct article. Sources would have to be worked into the article, of course, and perhaps a change of title to "Air entrainment (concrete)" would be helpful. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:07, 13 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!} 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The concept of entrainment and the material that may be used are sufficiently different to warrant their own articles. ~~From my view, it would be akin to redirecting Ceramic to Brake pad all things being equal.~~ It definitely does need citations though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That analogy doesn't make much sense on second thought; that being said, the process is sufficiently separate compared to a specific implementation of the technique. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Some reasonable references but it could do with more. As a Technical Editor for Springer, I do have access to journals but at the moment I don't have enough free time to help much GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I added the missing references. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:06, 4 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. I'm closing this after the nominator withdrew their nomination stating that these articles will be nominated for AFD individually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhlach family[edit]

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

This article is just a genealogy of the Muhlach family, disguised under the section name "List of members". That is not allowed on Wikipedia. The short lead section of the article makes this claim more prominent. There are no previous revisions of the article that do not have a genealogy, making it more likely to be deleted.

This article was made by:

who was already targeted by 2 proposed deletions of his/her articles, that being Ejercito family and Gutierrez family.

For the exact same reasons noted above, the following articles have also been nominated for deletion (they are also made by User:Carl Francis):

Cruz family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eigenmann family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ejercito family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gutierrez family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Laurel family (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Padilla family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sotto family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can consider the following options for all of the articles:

Merge these articles into whatever appropriate page applies to the family, such as Aga Muhlach for Muhlach family. This might not make any sense, because not all members of the Cruz/Eigenmann/Ejercito/Gutierrez/Laurel/Muhlach/Padilla/Sotto family are notable.
Delete these articles altogether. This is what I would choose.
Keep these articles and remove the genealogical content.
Keep these articles and expand them while keeping the genealogical content (see WP:NOTGENEALOGY).
Any other option as decided by participants of this AfD.

EJPPhilippines (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. EJPPhilippines (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. EJPPhilippines (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. EJPPhilippines (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure it was the best idea to bundle all of these articles together into one AFD. Each article has to be assessed individually, so there may not be "Delete All" or "Merge All" opinions being offered unless these articles are very similar to each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to bundle these 8 articles into this AfD because they are all made by User:Carl Francis, and they all follow the same structure:
- A short lead section, e.g. "XYZ family is a family of entertainers."
- A "List of members" section that contains a genealogy of the family, e.g.:
1. Father XYZ
  1. ∞ married Mother XYZ
    Son XYZ
    
    Daughter XYZ
- Sometimes a "See also" section, though there is not much to see there.
- A "References" section that contains references for the genealogy, not for the family itself.
EJPPhilippines (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Laurel family is one of the more important political dynasties in the Philippines, having produced a president, vice president, several senators, representatives and other local officials. The Sotto family, is sort of the same, being the first senatorial political dynasty. The Padillas are mostly local officials, but in multiple places. The "acting" families can go, but the political families? Not so fast. Bad idea to bundle these. Withdraw your nom. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 8 articles that are bundled here are really, just genealogies. There is nothing else that explains the families, it primarily focuses on the family tree. Look at their "References" sections, it is just references used to build the family tree, a.k.a. genealogy. As I said before, that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Think again. EJPPhilippines (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the articles, the Laurel family and Sotto family are WP:N; the Padillas, somewhat less so. We are debating if the subjects of the articles are notable. AFD is not clean-up. This news article discusses the Sotto family. This news article even discusses the Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986 debates if the anti-dynasty provision in the then being-drafted constitution should apply to the Laurels, saying that the Laurels were in government even during the Emilio Aguinaldo days. Other WP:RS discuss the Laurels even in the Spanish colonial era.

Think again. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the broad concept of "Laurel family" may be notable does NOT mean the article should be kept as-is. Just because AFD is not cleanup does NOT mean that we cannot recommend a TNT or redirect here to allow a start-over that actually addresses any significance of the dynasty. If the page is now nothing but a genealogy with a family tree including non-notable members, it can be excluded if reconfigured, but that's no reason to derail the discussion when that's duplicative to the List of political families in the Philippines page. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect all When the article is nothing but a genealogy, I don't believe an article is appropriate. The Sottos, Padillas, and Laurels can be redirected to List of political families in the Philippines#Laurel family — Batangas, List of political families in the Philippines#Padilla family — Bulacan and Camarines Norte, and List of political families in the Philippines#Sotto family — Cebu, Quezon City, Parañaque and Pasig, where officeholding/notable members are already listed, without prejudice against recreation with actually substantive content and sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close per Wikipedia:TRAINWRECK. Let's revisit each article's AfD in its own merit. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sure agree with you. EJPPhilippines (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm.... so close it? Howard the Duck (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to unbundle the 7 other articles in this AfD but they were quickly reverted. EJPPhilippines (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: is it possible to unbundle this nomination to make an Afd for each article? I think nom is fine with separate the AfD for each article. Currently, I think this AfD bundle is a trainwreck and we won't reach a good consensus. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this, I vote for close per Lenticel because we need to evaluate the merits (or lack of it) of each article on its own. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there are no Delete opinions, this AFD can be closed if EJPPhilippines states that they withdrawing their nomination. You can either state that here at the bottom or under your nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination. I will try to renominate the 8 articles separately. EJPPhilippines (talk) 15:19, 31 October 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 01:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaburu[edit]

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

Cites no (secondary) sources. I also cannot find any references to this on Google so appears to fail notability requirement. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--there's just nothing there. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found nothing of value on this.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No mentions in Swedish media and nothing that even comes close to helping to meet WP:GNG that I can find online. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried and failed to locate any sources to save this article. There are mentions in Swedish media, but nothing substantial – the best I can find is the Vestmanlands Läns Tidning article "Sanning – konsekvens" from 30 January 2006, where there is a couple of sentences which actually touch on describing their music, but it's not really something to build an article on. /Julle (talk) 17:33, 2 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 ThunderCats characters. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetara (ThunderCats)[edit]

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

I don't see general notability here. There are a handful of sources about this character and I don't think it's enough, although I'm sure others will differ. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this should be moved to Cheetara, as there's no other articles competing for that title. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. @Skarmory: I've boldly redirected Cheetara for now as it was a duplicate article, before seeing your comment here. I don't want my redirect to suggest opposition to your comment, I would be okay with the other way around. I did it this way because the AfD link was to this title. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus: It was a redirect when I made the comment. An IP has now made a cut-and-paste move during an AFD to place the content at the undisambiguated title without an AFD tag. I'll revert that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the article's reception is pretty poor and mostly based on listicles, the nom gets a WP:TROUT for not bothering with WP:BEFORE. A simple GScholar search shows some substantial discussion in a Master Thesis. There is passing (SIGCOV-failing to me) but usable analysis in [50]. Likewise, a single but useful sentence in [51] (although I am not sure if this is reliable - was this published and reviewed?). There are several other sources which may have something useful. It is the nom's responsibility to do BEFORE and to tell us whether those sources are no good. What I have found suggests that this character is likely notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Is there evidence that this applies to the Masters thesis mentioned? The Asian Social Science journal is published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education - they are listed at an article called "2017 list of 'predatory' science journals published, hundreds claim to be Canadian". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is not great. @Daranios, @Siroxo - do you see anything I missed? PS. There is some relevant content in Tygra, although it seems to have SIGCOV issues (and that article has GNG issues similar to the one here, I fear...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 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!} 01:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To List of ThunderCats characters due to extremely weak sourcing. No prejudice towards a recreation if better sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of ThunderCats characters. No evidence that the subject meets GNG. Please ping me if good sources are located. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ThunderCats characters. Per Zxcvbnm, this can always be re-expanded if sources are found. But it would be better to see a quality list than many low quality articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:55, 31 October 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 all‎ to France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020[edit]

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

This article together with the same topic for each year was merged into France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Grk1011 without consensus and noted here. Note that, there has been objection from BugsFan17 to redirect articles of this topic for recent years. As for this one, edit war occurs and involves other editors including Binksternet, Smthngnw and Dealer07's sock ips from Attiki, Athens, Greece. Therefore, I proposed this deletion to obtain a consensus if articles under this topic of each year should be blanked and redirected, including this one and the following related pages:

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and France. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the [Some Country] in the [Some International Song Contest] [Some Year] articles should be redirected to catch-all articles based on the contest in a particular year. The country's participation can be summarized in one or two paragraphs. No need for individual country articles. Oh, and Dealer07 should be rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0C0:B90A:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect for this article. However, I do not believe that all "country in year" articles are the same. I'll repost what I wrote at the catch-all talk page for context: Hi all- I've boldly merged the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 articles into this summary article. I don't think all year articles should be merged for all countries, but these specific ones consisted of internal selections with little public fanfare or widespread media coverage. The [merged information] basically consisted of identifying who was selected, how, with what song, and how the entry fared at the contest. This level of detail is already the threshold for this [summary] article, so a separate article with the same exact information (alongside boilerplate background from this article and contest summaries copy-pasted from other articles) seems like overkill. Additionally, this [summary] article already was missing at least 2 years of information, so we were doing a disservice to the reader by scattering that information. More discussion would be necessary for articles with detailed national finals, which would likely not require merges and would remain as separate articles. As part of the redirects, I did merge the relevant information. I do respect other editor's desires to disagree, so happy to take part in this discussion with a wider audience. Grk1011 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support the redirects for the 2022 and 2023 articles that were later added to this nom. Grk1011 (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Completely concur with Grk1011 that in many cases there are good reasons to continue to host articles of this nature, and in fact can be a valued resource for readers. The San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest good topic is a prime example of this. However in many cases, as with this article, there is no information presented that can't be replicated, or is not already duplicated, within the parent topic article (in this case France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest), and therefore a separate article for the particular year in question is not required. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. What I am noticing amongst this deletion spree (across Eurovision articles in general) is that good information is being lost due to the carelessness of those deleting or redirecting. Even if efforts were being made in order to keep basic information, this would be hard to support due to lost information such as the juror results, which it is standard to have for every country in every year (should those be deleted too?). Most (but not all) of this information could be replicated, but it never is. Templates aren't being copied, artists get pages deleted without their information being ever moved to (Country) in (Year), for example Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 which has one lazy mention of the individual artists and no repetition of the succession box that surely should be there. If we are going to be deleting pages in order to apparently clean up the site, it is important to make sure that we're not making the site worse at the same time (and at the moment, this process is making the site worse). Toffeenix (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand some of your concerns about making sure that we don't lose anything vital when merging/redirecting articles, however it sounds to me as though you're wanting a policy where we just move everything from one article into another without considering the overall cohesion of the new article. In the case of artist page deletion this comes down to notability, and it's not right that in cases where a standalone article on an artist is not merited that we then just replicate word-for-word the content from that article in another article when the context is not there to justify this. That is not the place for that information, and while yes there can be some discretion for including summary information about the artist(s) or song, having a whole section in the "country by year" articles devoted to the song and artist, including any infoboxes/templates, is sloppy and creates almost a "Frankenstein's monster" situation which I believe should be avoided. This is especially true in instances such as the articles within the AfD, where the contents of said section are essentially "this is the artist, this is the song and these are the songwriters", which is hardly needed given that all this information is present in the articles for the specific edition of the contest and on the country's participation. Regarding your point on succession boxes, all relevant links are already featured in the navboxes at the bottom of the article to aid in navigation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toffeenix: there was consensus back in 2021 to not structure articles in the way that you are recommending; see here. These pages aren't supposed to serve as the place where aspects deemed as non-notable (in terms of Wikipedia) can live on as stub articles. Relating to Sims' 'cohesive' comment, I'd suggest you read Australia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (a representative article showing this problem) from top to bottom. These articles are intended to be chronological stories of the participation, not repetitive lists of facts. Grk1011 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in order to make sure I am understanding correctly, you are saying Australia/JESC18 is an article with too much information? Toffeenix (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an article with the same exact information repeated over and over again. Grk1011 (talk) 22:39, 27 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!} 01:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Keep and Procedural close per WP:WRONGFORUM. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sourcing used in the article. I'm not seeing a valid reason to merge or redirect per WP:ATD as it appears to be a viable content fork. Further the nominator has not made a valid policy based argument to bring this article to AFD. None of the commenters above have addressed this article in relation to our guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY which indicates to me that this is not an appropriate discussion for AFD. In reading the comments above, the objections to this article appear to be entirely based on an editorial preference for housing content at the parent article ~~based on a past merge discussion~~. This is the WP:WRONGFORUM for this discussion which should have gone through WP:MERGEPROP because it is a WP:CONTENTFORK on a notable topic and merging is optional.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I amended my comment above, now that I understand a WP:CONSENSUS discussion never happened when these articles were originally redirected (and indeed this AFD is the first community discussion of these articles). It is not surprising that edit warring and article reversions occurred around a contentious merge that was done without discussion by a single editor. This further points to the need for a merge discussion through the proper forum at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers which is where editors are supposed to bring controversial merges. The fact that at least one editor besides myself has indicated that content will be lost through redirecting articles to the parent target; indicates that a selective merge of some material might be appropriate. This is a discussion that should be brought to the proper forum where decisions can be made over which articles should be redirected (or potentially kept) and what content should be merged if any. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A merge or redirect is certainly an appropriate outcome from an AfD, though I agree if that was the nominator's intent there were 'easier' paths. The point myself and some others are trying to make is that a properly written Lead for this article actually is the whole article, and at that point, it fits nicely as a paragraph in the France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest summary article. There really isn't anything else to add to improve this article, so having it forked just spreads around a lot of information. Grk1011 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a merge if there is no content to merge. And even then, a merger can be a perfectly valid outcome of an AfD discussion. And even then, per WP:NOTBURO, a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.

Regarding your point about notability, most references in the article aren't actually about France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020; most are either about France in JESC in general, or about the JESC edition in general; only 5 are specifically about France's participation in the 2020 contest. The only information from those sources is: who was the entrant, what was the result, and how did the jurors vote. That is not enough to write a proper encyclopedia article. That sounds more like something for a database. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are missing the point and ignoring deletion policy at WP:WRONGFORUM. There was no valid deletion argument made in the nomination based on deletion policy. A merge and redirect is only a valid option at AFD as an alternative to a properly made deletion nomination per WP:ATD. The nominator never made a deletion argument and was essentially requesting a merge/redirect. This is the wrong forum and this should therefore be a procedural close. AFD is not a proxy for WP:MERGEPROP; and a merge proposal has notifications made at the target article whereas an AFD does not. This discussion shouldn't be had here because the proper notifications that would be done in a merge procedure don't happen at AFD, and that has an impact on community participation/ input and the consensus building proces; particularly MERGEPROP banners that would notify editors with an invested interest in the content area at the target article. This discussion should be closed and a merge prop done in order that the editors with an invested interest in the target article might be more likely to be made aware of the discussion, and that the threat of deletion be removed from that discussion. We don't discuss merges here that aren't related to a properly made deletion rationale.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I notified people there. But a merge banner would imply that content is actually being merged. The whole reasoning behind this AfD is that there's so little info in these articles, everything is already covered by France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A merge was already done some time ago and now a sock-related account is reverting it. All of the relevant information is already in the 'target' article; a merge discussion doesn't accomplish anything. We're here because it appeared that there may be support from others for the article to exist and the nominator is looking to gain a consensus that could help with similar articles. Most, if not all, invested editors are aware of this discussion. They've either been tagged in the nom or found out through our WikiProject alerts. With the exception of you, every other commenter above is active in Eurovision articles. Being here brings a wider perspective and I for one am eager to see how uninvolved editors feel. Many of us agree with the nominator's deletion rationale and have !voted as such (I'd prefer a straight deletion, but the redirect is fine too). I understand that you disagree with this, and you are certainly welcome to have the opinion that this article should remain. For me, it feels weird to double down on a process concern when input on the actual subject of the discussion is plentiful. Grk1011 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize. It can be challenging to know what to do when dealing with a problematic editor(s). I would not have brought this to AFD though, as AFD's narrow scope is on determining content inclusion based on set notability guidelines (or speedy deletion rationales). This really isn't the place to settle content disputes of this type. My suggestion would be to have a formal WP:MERGEPROP which is what Grk1011 should have done as opposed to this. The outcome of a formal consensus from a successful merge proposal discussion would then be enforceable (by an admin if necessary and at WP:Page protection). If further issues occur with edit warring, you might consider reporting the problem to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. All of this to say, AFD is not the place to handle this type of edit warring conflict or the editorial process of merging multiple articles.4meter4 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per Grk1011, they said all that needs to be said. // Timothy :: talk 03:22, 5 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. Although we have an editor arguing vigorously to Keep, I see a rough consensus that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FLOSS Weekly episodes[edit]

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

This is listcruft. This list of episodes fails WP:NLIST. The show, itself, is probably not notable so a list of episodes is unreasonable. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (copy from the talk page prior to this deletion request) One of the most notable features of this list is the large number of luminaries in the Free/Open Source community that have appeared in episodes. Some quick examples: Miguel de Icaza, Randal Schwartz, Guido van Rossum, Eben Moglen, Jeremy Allison, Jon "maddog" Hall, Ward Cunningham, and many more. This alone should be enough to confer notability. However the thing that really makes it notable is the ability to see what other guests were able to be peers (in that they were also guests on the show) of the big players. There is certainly some subset (but definitely not all!) of these people/projects that are notable enough that they deserve their own pages, but have been missed by our community. Teeks99 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a list of notable guests on the show, it's a list of episodes. The episodes aren't notable. Also, nobody deserves their own page. Wikipedia has articles about subjects; the subjects do not have Wikipedia articles. Notability is what WP:N says, not what you think it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much a list of guests, they have a full column here, it just isn't how it is indexed. I would agree that without the guests/project columns this should be deleted. However, as I said before there are so many notable entries here that it clearly meets the criteria in WP:NLIST: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" Teeks99 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list does not pass WP:NLIST. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability separate from the show (if that's even notable) and is completely unsourced. This really is a no-brainer delete. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as others have identified, the list is completely unsourced, and even the show itself is of dubious notability. Tollens (talk) 07:38, 3 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.