< September 20 September 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was move to draft‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kian Donkers[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 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 California Aqueduct. History will remain, so anyone interested in doing a merge will be able to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista Pumping Plant[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2018 with no improvement. This plant does not appear to be notable as a separate entity to the California State Water Project, with no in-depth coverage of the plant itself. The only easily accessible thing I could find that comes close is this page on UC Davis' website, but it's not even two paragraphs. Newspapers.com turned up WP:ROTM coverage only. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This plant appears in the table at California State Water Project#Pump plants. If no reliable sources turn up to prove notability, that's a good redirect target. Note that only 3 of the other 17 stations have articles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)<
A. B., are you sure about this Merge target? Because it's just a list. I don't see how any other information could be incorporated here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Facepalm) Liz -you're right. Sorry. Redirect.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Following other links on that page, maybe California Aqueduct could be a better merge target. (or California State Water Project § California Aqueduct)? —siroχo 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to settle on one Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please read my comment. It makes no sense to Merge to California State Water Project#Pump plants as this section is just a list. How would you Merge article content to a list? Please do not just rubber stamp what other editors have suggested and look at the possible target articles yourself. I'm giving this discussion another relist to see if editors can come up with a realistic suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: https://www.topozone.com/california/kern-ca/locale/buena-vista-pumping-plant/, http://wikimapia.org/11413011/Buena-Vista-Pumping-Plant,https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/SWP-Facilities/San-Joaquin, https://research.engineering.ucdavis.edu/gpa/excavations/buena-vista-excavation/ All our passing mentions or include very little detail. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
California Department of Water Resources ~ Partially Yes Yes No No ✘ No
Wikimapia Yes Yes ? No No No ✘ No
Topozone Yes Yes Yes Yes No No ✘ No
UC Davis Civil & Environmental Engineering Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ Partially ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Water.ca.gov No State government Yes ~ ✘ No
Wikimapia Yes No Open wiki No ✘ No
Topozone Yes Yes No Database entry ✘ No
Tessa Yes ~ No fact-checking, just a photo No ✘ No
Final Design Report No Published by the state government Yes ? Unaccessible in full via Google Books ✘ No
Final Geologic Report Published by the state government Yes ? Unaccessible in full via Google Books ? Unknown
Seismicity Near No Published by the state government Yes ? Unaccessible in full via Google Books ✘ No
Office Report No Published by the state government Yes ? Unaccessible in full via Google Books ✘ No
Analysis of Soil Yes Yes No Article is not about the plant but is about the soil more broadly ✘ No
Buena Vista Excavation Yes Yes ~ Short article + only about a very small aspect of the plant ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 11:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think we should redirect the page, we don't have sufficient Independent RS with in Depth Coverage. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 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! 03:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hobden[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker / writer. His production company Modern Life? also seems non-notable. Natg 19 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling production company into AfD officially:

Modern Life? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am doubtful whether the two films that you mention are even notable, but would have to do more analysis on them. Natg 19 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 14 September 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, 21 September 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! 03:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Search Of (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. There are sources, but sources do not mention film. Dead sources possibly support that this was screened at a festival, but that does not establish notability and there is no in-depth discussion or coverage. I am AGF but I am having a hard time understanding why many of these sources were used as they do not appear to involve film at all. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The source linked is not a full review but "synopsis provided by CinemaSource" per the small text after the first pargraph. CinemaSource is of dubious reliability and the coverage at just one paragraph IMO is at best marginal SIGCOV. I was unable to find further sourcing on IMDb, RT, Google, or Google Books using various different names as the film title is highly common. This also fails to meet any additional NFILM criteria. So, with IMO one source questionably counting to GNG I am at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 11:26, 9 September 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! 23:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haseeb Hassan[edit]

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

Most of the references currently used here do not even mention or name-drop this individual, let alone cover him in significant depth. The Times of India reference has a brief blurb about him, but that's nowhere near sufficient for notability, and searching, I find a few name drops and brief mentions, puff pieces/press release looking material and a couple things about some spat on Twitter he was involved in, but nothing even approaching enough to write a comprehensive biography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:31, 31 August 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! 21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 14 September 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! 23:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Important figure or widely cited by peers or successors: No sign of that whatsoever.
  2. Known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique: No; no; and no.
  3. Created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: The serial Diyar-e-dil gathered a few listings-cum-presentations in mid-2015 when it aired and has since sunk without a trace.
  4. His work or works has become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums: No sign of anything out of that list.
I see no strong reason to change my suggestion. As to the fact that the article was curated by a single-purpose account ten years ago, that's just a collateral consideration. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially well-versed in the application of WP:DIRECTOR #3, especially in the key issue of how "significant" is defined, so I don't want to come across as stubborn, but I believe Diyar-e-dil is "significant" enough. Criterium #3 does not state that everything with multiple independent reviews is "significant" per se, but it doesn't provide any better metric, so by my subjective analysis I think Diyar-e-dil clears the bar.
Going off of its Wikipedia article: Diyar-e-dil had reasonably high ratings in the world's fifth-largest country (FWIW the "rank" values in the article cannot be verified from the provided links). It got quite a few thorough (and incidentally positive) reviews outside of listicles. It even won some of the Lux Style Awards, which are not only independent, but also seem to be the most significant awards a TV show can win in Pakistan. I understand that it may not seem like much, but this begs the question of what more could it reasonably have achieved as a TV show in Pakistan?
WP:DIRECTOR specifically requires only one of the four criteria to be met, indicated by the or after each item. As for "[it] has since sunk without a trace", WP:DIRECTOR #3 seems not to require that its coverage or fame be lasting, unless there is some precedent or practice that I am unaware of. As for the "major role" part, I think it's hard to see how the director is not a major role, which is backed up by his also being nominated for a Lux Award [6]. I am honestly surprised by how strongly I'm defending this show and its director, but I think there's enough evidence for doing so. Toadspike (talk) 07:06, 29 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niles, North Dakota[edit]

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

Another ND GNIS stub which turns out to have once been the location of a rail siding with a grain elevator beside it. There's nothing there now, and no evidence of a town surrounding the spot. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place shows evidence from secondary sources.
  • Grain and Feed Journals Consolidated. Volume 11 1903 page 585.
Niles, N.D. -- The Farmers' Independent Eltr. Co has been sued by the G.N. Ry. to stop the construction of the elevator which is being built on the station grounds of the railway company without its permission.
  • North American Locomotives: A Railroad-by-Railroad Photohistory page 125
An A-B-A set of passenger F3s lead the eastward Western Star at Niles, North Dakota, on June 29, 1953. (showing picture of train and rural town behind, proving inhabited)
बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the photo, it looks like a barn, not a town. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.[1][2]"
The legal recognition is given by the lawsuit happening in "Niles, ND", mentioned in the historical source above. So, this satifies WP:GEOLAND, leading to keep.
A railway station does not meet the criteria of "populated". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep, per User:RecycledPixels comments below. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycledPixels: Which of the sources states "with enough of a population"? Did any of the sources specifically mention that this was ever a populated place? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those did, other than the mention in the gazetteer that if you want to send mail to people in Niles, mail it to Leeds because the post office in Niles is closed. I did a search on Newspapers.com through the Devils Lake Inter-Ocean newspaper and found enough snippets to confirm it was a populated place, such as August 24, 1906, page 3. "Harry Thompson of Lansing, Iowa arrived Thursday. He is interested with Mr. Bakewell in the town of Niles and will remain until the harvest season is over", or March 29, 1901, page 6, "Rocky Anderson, of Niles, has been down for a few days visit with old friends", or March 23, 1900, page 8 "E.B. Page, of Niles, Benson county, was shaking hands with this Churchs Ferry friends here Wednesday. He says he has to come here at least once a month and always hauls away a wagon load of supplies. Mr Page is paying considerable attention to the raising of hogs, finding it a very paying investment.". The other Devils Lake newspaper, the Devils Lake World, has snippets like "[...] A few weeks ago Montgomery paid an election wager to Elling Tufte, of Niles when he started to wheel the latter from Leeds to Niles in a wheelbarrow. [...]" on page 5 of the January 11, 1922 edition (I didn't re-type the whole blurb because it was wordy and not very interesting), or "Elevator burned: Niles, N.D., Oct. 21-- The Independent elevator here burned to the ground yesterday morning. Considerable grain was destroyed." on page 8 of the October 27, 1911 paper. Recall from above that Devils Lake is a community located 27 miles south of Niles. Newspapers.com doesn't have any archives of papers from Minnewauken or Leeds, which are the other nearby towns. But it does have a German-language (in German gothic typeface, no less) paper from Rugby, up the Great Northern Railway from Niles in adjacent Pierce county. On page 4 of the July 1, 1909 paper, there's an article that describes a tornado that hit the area around Leeds and Niles. Mrs. Weiler, who lives near the small Niles train station, lost her assets in the storm. Two and a half miles south of Niles, the Urness family farmhouse was demolished and Mrs. Urness suffered life-threatening injuries. A couple of counties away to the northeast is the town of Langdon. The Courier Democrat on May 2, 1901 on page 6 has the local weather forcasts for the surrounding counties. In Benson counties, weather reports are given for Pleasant Lake, Niles, Leeds, and Brinsmade. (cold with frosty night and the top two inches of ground were frozen in Pleasant Lake, in case you were wondering). The Grand Forks Herald, a paper published tree counties to the East, mentions in its January 3, 1922 paper on page 7, "... An interesting trip that would give some idea of the work of the highway commission would be one over the Theodore Roosevelt Trail through Nelson and Ramsey counties to Niles in Benson county, then south through Benson county over the state highwat to Sheyenne...". At this point, I've stopped looking further. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see either closing this discussion as No consensus or relisting it for another week and I'm choosing the latter. As always, this discussion can be closed as soon as another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment for the three sources I could access:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:PaulGamerBoy360
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
GNIS Yes Yes This Location was enterred into the GNIS In 1980, The GNIS was not corrupted in 1980 Yes 148 Words, Partially Significant Coverage ✔ Yes
Hometown Locator Yes Independent of Subject Yes Well Known & Up to Date Website Containing Reliable information ~ Partially: Contains 2 Sentences of information about Niles, and lists nearby locations as well as a map ~ Partial
Source 3 Yes Independent of Subject ~ Accuracy is Not Guaranteed No 5 scentences & a map ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also found this source: https://roadsidethoughts.com/nd/niles-xx-benson-profile.htm PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This brings me to the "person from" issue. I'm "from" Laurel, MD, except that I never lived in that city. I actually was born in DC (where I never lived) and lived in Silver Spring for a bit under a year; then we moved to a brand new suburb about five miles from Laurel. That's the problem: the fact that people are "from Niles" or the like only establishes Niles as a locale; it doesn't make it a town. All it really says is that people in the area, back when, went to the post office at the station to get their mail and send things off, and when RFD started in the area, it was where the wagon/truck set out from. We have doggedly said that locales have to pass a pretty high GNG-level notability test; just mentions and database entries don't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS is not reliable due to user generated content, which did not happed in 1980. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "user generated content" (because, mostly, there isn't any in GNIS) but you are quite incorrect about it having been fine in 1980. In fact most problems we've found can be traced back to that initial exercise in map-reading. More recent entries from other sources besides the topos are quite a bit worse, but they made plenty of mistakes in the first pass. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NGEO is a rebuttable presumption of notability. Policy says articles cannot be based on primary sources, and so far every single source identified that could support an assertion of being a "populated place" is primary (or primary and autogenerated SPS garbage like the "roadside thoughts" site, which asserts When the people of Niles refer to themselves (known as a demonym), they frequently use Nilesite). There is zero reason this possibly-populated grain elevator needs to be a standalone article, so if the fact that we haven't actually established it even meets NGEO at all isn't enough then my !vote can be considered based on NOPAGE.
JoelleJay (talk) 04:56, 28 September 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. While there's no consensus on whether this ought to be a separate article, there seems to be no wish for it to be outright deleted. Discussion on whether and where to merge can, of course, be continued outside of AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preaching chords[edit]

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

According to my WP:BEFORE, non-notable (fails WP:GNG). Previously de-prodded. (The term is real, but appears only as passing mentions, e.g. this PhD diss and the sources in the article.) Should potentially be redirected to Black sermonic tradition as an ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, some solid Keeps and a Redirect/Merge suggestion to two different articles so we are not close to consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Black sermonic tradition: Granted the refs aren't that good (and ref 1 is a deadlink) but subject matter seems notable as per WP:GNG. We need to give editors time to find good sources. CVDX (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Conkling[edit]

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

Non-notable author / businessman. Created by a SPA in 2007. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergem[edit]

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

From the limited sources online, it seems like sergem is a word that means 'offering'; could not find sources that this exists as the dairy product that is described here under provided spelling. Kazamzam (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am unable to view the page for the first reference, and I have my doubts about the reliability of both The Northeast Today as a site and Cheese for Dummies. The third reference only mentions sergem and Tibet once in a table - I don't think that meets the criteria for a quality reference to establish notability or determine the nature of the topic itself. Kazamzam (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 21 September 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks on civilians attributed to United States government forces[edit]

List of attacks on civilians attributed to United States government forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH and fails WP:NLIST. Per WP:NLIST, " list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources," which this list has not. Besides, the items here are covered with further depth and proper context in United States war crimes. Longhornsg (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Executive actions of the CIA[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:POV article that..makes no sense anyway. Execution actions are executive orders, and already covered in well-sourced article such as Executive Order 11905, Executive Order 12036, etc. Specific events covered in country-specific articles such as Drone strikes in Pakistan. Longhornsg (talk) 22:22, 21 September 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 Afshar experiment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriar Afshar[edit]

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

Subject does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No faculty position, Web of Science gives 56 citations total. The main claim for fame is Afshar experiment which has historically had a disproportionately large impact in Wikipedia. But based on the low citation number, it has had no significant impact on the field and thus does not confer notability to the subject. Here is the version of the article before my edits and deletions. It has few more references (to minor awards and such). Those New Scientist refs can be read in Wikipedia library. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As @Ldm1954 notes the "Institute" does not show up on Google maps. The site is mostly dead. The startup site is just a picture. The Kor-FX was a Kickstarter project in 2014 when the Facebook account goes silent. They have a web site with product but it's unclear if the really still exist. If all of this info is removed as unreliable we are left with the Afshar exp already covered. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ldm1954 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, WP:NACADEMIC is perhaps higher than what I mentioned, although it is also not specific so has loopholes. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 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. Nomination withdrawn, no support for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Music News[edit]

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

This is a terribly written article that fails WP:NCORP. Despite the large number of references, it's basically all WP:REFSPAM, where DMN is passingly mentioned, but there is no significant coverage. There is no in-depth coverage as far as I can see. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: From the sources provided here, this subject clearly does pass WP:BASIC. User:Let'srun 20:31, 21 September 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 Jack Ketchum. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies' Night (novel)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to Jack Ketchum? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Los Angeles crime family (tentatively, in any case). The consensus is clear that this should not be a standalone article, and as it appears at this time that Cohen crime family is headed for a merge result as well, it would not make sense to do the work twice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cohen crime family members[edit]

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

Totally unsourced, and no sources appear to exist to indicate that such a "crime family" ever existed. These people certainly existed, but their membership in a supposed "crime family" is at best dubious. Note that the main article Cohen crime family has been nominated for deletion on the same grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen crime family Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge targets suggested, one of which, Cohen crime family, is also at AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 21 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Brownsville crash[edit]

2023 Brownsville crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable news story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS: underwent a brief burst of coverage with WP:RSBREAKING sources, which does not count toward WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time and to date, there was breaking news and there was more WP:SUSTAINED coverage. For example, there was a comprehensive analysis of the event that appeared 16 days later in the New York Times[8] and an item on Texas Public Radio 2.5 months after the event.[9] The extensive and sustained coverage makes that the article meets the WP:GNG with the caveat that only 4 months have passed since this apparent attack on Latino homeless in the US. Hence the comment that it is Way too early for the claim that this is not sustained. The experience with similar events, however, is that these are sustained. Moreover, the sustained coverage is already evident. Also, while it is true that all the sources IN the article appeared from May 7 to May 9, per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To complement on gidonb's articles: as recently as August, there have been articles covering the crash after the release of the toxicology report results,[10], after a ramming in North Carolina,[11][12] and during the anniversary of El Paso mass shooting.[13] There has definitely been WP:SUSTAINED coverage. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there was in fact sustained coverage as demonstrated by Gidonb, it's just that the nominator didn't bother to look for it. CVDX (talk) 22:31, 29 September 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! 20:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gable[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources cited are mostly interviews, plus some obvious paid puff pieces. She has some impressive-sounding titles, but has so far had only what appear to be minor presidential appointments, as a delegate, a vice-chair of a committee, and "U.S. Ambassador to Expo 2005". That's not a diplomatic role, or an ambassadorship: for context, BTS are South Korea's ambassadors to the 2030 Expo.

In a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find any significant secondary coverage of her, or her book, and WP:NAUTHOR isn't met. All I can find is a large pile of self-promotion and interviews, where she describes herself as a "former US ambassador".

Lisa Guillermin Gable was speedy deleted twice in 2017 and 2018 as spam, and was part of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook/Archive. The edit history of this one so far has a powerful aroma of sockpuppetry about it. Wikishovel (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to White House and State Department press releases provide documentation of positions held. Is this what you need? https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-12.html
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/february/80959.htm
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bestselling-books-week-ended-october-9-11634239435
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/04/text/20020412-5.html 148.59.230.158 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are not references that lend towards notability because they are not independent coverage. Additionally, none of the positions held confer notability. Of the examples mentioned are notable because of other things, although honestly Doug Hickey's article does not have particularly strong sourcing and even being a real US Ambassador does not guarantee notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A statement by the President of the United States should not be mistaken for a mere press release; rather, it represents the official appointment of a critical role through which the President exercises his authority.
The individual in this position signs a bilateral agreement on behalf of the United States and other nations and officially represents the US with the heads of state and sovereigns from 120 countries. Japan's operation under this role involved over 72 personnel and served approximately 2 million visitors at the Pavilion. Notably, 19 state delegations, 16 led by governors, signed manufacturing agreements that directly led to billions of dollars in foreign direct investment. These achievements are documented in a report submitted to Congress and were recognized on the floor of the Senate. The U.S. presence at the Aichi World EXPO amounted to a $32 million operation and remained one of the most extensive public-private partnerships within the U.S. government. World's fair
It's worth emphasizing that the position of Vice Chair of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services holds a 4-star protocol status and reports directly to both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense visiting over 50 military bases worldwide representing the office of the Secretary. This particular role advised the Secretary of Defense on the fallout from Tailhook, the most significant sexual harassment scandal in the US military, a "notable" item covered in Wikipedia.
Observing the underrepresentation of women at this level within Wikipedia is disheartening. This commentary underscores the apparent bias against women in the review process and a deficiency in recognizing the significance of positions within the United States government as designated by the President.
Wikipedia features numerous minor officials within the United States government. However, it is puzzling that the only woman to assume a presidentially named ambassadorial role, after a 172-year gap, as a direct representative of the United States to the royal family of Japan and the Prime Minister is deemed not to meet the notability criteria.   Caeser2023 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)— Caeser2023 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
She has worked with notable people, at a notable expo and on a notable committee, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. The expo report submitted to Congress linked above is written by Gable. What's needed to demonstrate WP:Notability is multiple independent, WP:Secondary sources about her and her work. Wikishovel (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Below find notable sources, including WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Japan Times, Politico, the Congressional Record, and White House Archives.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bestselling-books-week-ended-october-9-11634239435
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2005-05-10/pdf/CREC-2005-05-10-pt1-PgS4865.pdfhttps://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2004/08/13/business/u-s-names-aichi-expo-commissioner/
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/garden/design-diplomacy-us-rejoins-worlds-fairs.html
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/text/20060629-11.html
https://uncommonwealth.virginiamemory.com/blog/2022/05/18/enormous-opportunities-governor-mark-r-warners-2005-trade-mission-to-japan-and-india/https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/food-companies-calories-michelle-obama-101982
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/food-companies-calories-michelle-obama-101982
https://www.wsj.com/articles/career-makeover-stepping-up-to-lead-1383089206
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/food-allergies-poor-children/2020/10/30/faadfe74-14ab-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/health/coronavirus-food-allergies.html Caeser2023 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of recently discovered sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the paywalled ones, I was able to search "Gable" before the wall went up. Most appear to be 1-2 passing mentions and not significant coverage on Gable herself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one possible exception from the new links is the short speech in the US Congressional Record [14], apparently by her Senator, thanking her and praising the job she did as Commissioner General to the Expo. In US politics, do these statements carry significant weight in assessing notability? Or are they throwaway political favours, like here in the UK? Either way, we still don't yet have WP:SIGCOV from "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Wikishovel (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: I would say not a ton notability-wise. A lot of notable people obviously have had recognition entered into the Congressional Record, but it's more Members of Congress recognizing constituents or as a favor like in the UK. For example, a similar short speech was given and entered into the record for a relative of mine upon his retirement as a police officer for a suburban township of about 50,000 people. It looks like this is one of many additional statements submitted on May 10, 2005, which include recognizing an Indiana high school receiving honorable mention (10th overall) in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution finals and the 75th anniversary of a local Wyoming VFW Post. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Argentina–Brazil football rivalry as a primary merge target, though this of course does not forbid merging elsewhere in addition should anyone feel that it's appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copa 50imo Aniversario de Clarín[edit]

Copa 50imo Aniversario de Clarín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar case to Copa Raúl Colombo. Lack of Wikipedia:Notability. This "cup" was not a tournament or recurring sports event but just a friendly match between Brazil and Argentina with no significative historic relevance for any of them.

Although this article has several reliable sources, most of them refer to the Clarín newspaper (main sponsor) and the presence of forward Tulio Maravilha (who had scored a goal with his hand in the 1995 Copa América – source: here) rather than the match itself.

This page could be merged into Argentina national football team results (1980–1999) which lists all the matches of the side during that period. Fma12 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 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) •Cyberwolf• 17:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Storment[edit]

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

Non-notable player. Fails the general and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Mahmoudi[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. My WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources showing significant coverage, even when searching in his native language ("رضا محمودی"). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 21 September 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 Procedural generation. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random dungeon[edit]

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

Old, poorly-sourced stub that I think fails notability guidelines. There isn't even a page for procedural generation in video games, which is what this is a subset of, just a video game section in Procedural generation. Most of the results I got in searches for "random dungeon" contradict the article's assertion that this is primarily a video game phenomenon - outside sources mostly mentioned Dungeons & Dragons - but more importantly, the results were all for dungeon generation tools, not for anyone discussing the subject in and of itself. Random dungeons could be covered elsewhere, possibly roguelike if people want, but I don't think anything would be lost by deleting this page. Moonreach (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Roca Barceló[edit]

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

I can find no information about this player except for databases, none of which provide anything apart from the fact that he was part of an Olympic team which finished 7th in 2016 - I can't even find out whether he even played. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkman[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 21 September 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) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marilynne Paspaley[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general, actor, and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 21 September 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 OPTi Inc.#History. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OPTi 929[edit]

OPTi 929 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails general and product-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might have gotten a review from PC/Computing, other than that there’s nothing but directories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 September 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 television stations in North Carolina. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WTNG-CD[edit]

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

Another non-notable LPTV; not much to go on (other than being sold to Bridge News) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Twenty Something[edit]

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

Lithuanian student's graduation film, a 20-minute short, apparently won (no RS on this in any case) best student film, a 'Golden Egg' and not the Silver Crane. In any case, it's not enough for WP:GNG or WP:NFILM - "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." or indeed any other WP:NFILM criterion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 September 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) WJ94 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baliochila barnesi[edit]

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

Next to no information about this species to be found. This short article is about everything one can source. Griseo veritas (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a valid species under an accepted name, and has three RS citations.
awkwafaba (📥) 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for linking this, it’s good to know. I tried in vain to find something pertaining to animals but obviously I didn’t look hard enough. Griseo veritas (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was going to link SPECIESOUTCOMES, but it's already done. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep per above. AryKun (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a couple of citations to the article, including the protologue, which is linked to BHL. This link should show that there is much information that could be added to the article, contrary to the nom's assertion. Esculenta (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given what I’ve learned from others input here and the existence of SPECIESOUTCOMES. Griseo veritas (talk) 08:19, 24 September 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. Consensus is that there is not a valid reason or need for deletion, but the list should probably be split as its current size significantly inhibits its usefulness. Details of that proposed split are best discussed on the talk page, they're not really a matter for AfD at this point. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Glagolitic manuscripts[edit]

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

By far the longest article on enwiki, an endless list of every minor scrap of paper with this script. Either needs very severe pruning to include e.g. only notable manuscripts, or complete scrapping as unwieldy, excessively detailed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Fram (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This Window[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 21 September 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. Notwithstanding some bludgeoning of this discussion, there is consensus that the article as written is in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion-making[edit]

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

A dogs-breakfast compilation based around the common word 'conclusion'. No single identifiable topic, as should be self-evident from the section headers and the sources cited. Wikipedia is not a repository of Google search results. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you got a little confused with the name, albeit it seems like for some unknown reason you in particular suggest nearly all articles I create for deletion (which I assume is allowed and I try to keep good faith). It's not "a repository of Google search results"; it's about (the making of) conclusions which is a substantial and notable subject in various fields such as procedures in academic literature or AI.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which single source amongst the many you cite suggests that 'conclusion-making' is a single defined topic encompassing everything from the 'conclusions' section of a scientific paper, to science education, medical diagnosis, AI, "argument map systems", and the genetic basis of intelligence? And how does 'conclusion-making' differ from 'decision-making' - a set of loosely-related topics which Wikipedia quite properly does not attempt to shoehorn into a single article? This is not a 'notable subject' it is a synonym for a common phrase - 'decision-making' - commonly applied in all sorts of diverse contexts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about "genetic basis of intelligence" and I don't know why you suggest it is. It a large/broad topic, just like articles on Sensemaking, Thinking, Interpretation (philosophy) or Meaning (psychology) are (only few examples). While some used sources are about the subject do not use the term "conclusion-making" or are only about subaspects, quite a few of the used sources use this particular title/term (and if needed the article could be moved). How it differs from decision-making is clarified in the lead already which you don't seem to have read. There could also be three or four separate articles but I thought it would be better and more appropriate to have only one with subsections, especially since those are substantially overlapping and interlinked. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read what purports to be the lede. Given that it fails to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and summarise content covered in more depth the article body, but instead tries to define the topic by citing contradictory dictionary definitions and the like for the word 'conclusion', I fail to see how it is relevant to the question I asked: which single source you cite suggests that 'conclusion-making' on such a broad swathe of subject matter is a single topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to improve the lead and will add even further WP:RS. If you and/or others object to the current title, it can be moved to "Conclusion" with a subsection like "How conclusions are made" or "Conclusion-making". I don't think splitting it into 3–4 articles would be due, and all of these are relating to not "different things" but one single concept of conclusionmaking, similar to sense-making, applied in different fields. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the article title and/or concocting a lede around an unjustified premise will achieve precisely nothing. This article is synthesis cobbled together around a word used in different contexts to mean different things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And please read WP:TALK#REVISE. I'd appreciate it if you didn't edit your posts after I've replied to them. [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you refer to a specific policy. It says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source which is not done here and I don't see how it would apply. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the single source which concludes that the disparate collection of 'things called conclusions' can be treated as a unified topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are about the making of conclusions. I object to splitting the article since all of those refer to the same concept of conclusion just applied in different fields and the split articles would be too short each. Should I link all sources are about that and/or using that specific wording here? You could just look into the refs where I also added more quotes now so you can more easily see that they're about the subject of this article.
Examples [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. I think I found an appropriate middleground between the notability/prevalence of the subject and what the sources cover in detail/explicitly – the latter could be better/more extensive due to which I added an hatnote. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making your inability to understand Wikipedia policy on synthesis so abundantly clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources use the same term(s), all referring to the same concept, just applied within different fields.
How is it synthesis to put the different fields where this concept is applied or is a subject into one article, rather than separated multiple, when they all refer to the same concept? Just like in this case, e.g. sensemaking is applied in many different contexts, which certainly could warrant separate articles for each but does not preclude having one for the subject in general. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a single source that explicitly states that this is 'the same concept'. Do it now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)=[reply]
Just because other broad-topic articles that sound vaguely related exist doesn't mean that this article should. It's possible that they're junk and just haven't been nominated for deletion yet because nobody has wanted to bother. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal unsourced opinion that multiple sections of this article are "referring to the same overarching concept" is of precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Provide a source which explicitly backs it up. Now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done (>a single source). (Also consider that they use the same term/wording.) Prototyperspective (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is that? Provide a fucking citation before I report you for your ridiculous stonewalling bullshit AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean this edit. (Which, as far as I can tell so far, is just more mashing and includes at least one source that we shouldn't regard as reliable.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be well into WP:CIR territory at this point. Either that, or trolling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sources in the lede, which I thought I wouldn't need to clarify, in addition to all the other sources in the article which use the same terms like "conclusion-making". Since when are people to assume that the same wording / terms refer to different things instead of one thing due to which there is a word/phrase for it? I also take note of the unfriendliness to say the least at Provide a fucking citation before I report you for your ridiculous stonewalling bullshit. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are people to assume that the same wording / terms refer to different things instead of one thing due to which there is a word/phrase for it? Since 1971 at least. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, still no actual identified source, just more hand-waving, accompanied by the most ridiculous argument yet. What a surprise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is pure WP:SYNTH, not a notable topic in philosophy. Conclusion is a disambiguation page for good reason, the word is polysemic. - car chasm (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept this decision and there is some merit in the argumentation if the yet-unmentioned WP:TOOSOON is also considered since there could be more refs about all/multiple of the subsections at once than currently in the lede. This is my last comment here (most likely) and I just want to say, also addressing XOR'easter's point about ambiguity above: the word is not polysemic, it just has different applications.
Conclusion-making in AI is very different from human conclusion-making, but in this sentence "conclusion-making" refers to the same abstract concept, where implementation varies heavily, which is very different from "polysemic". Never said it was a notable subject in philosophy, it is a very notable subject more broadly and in other fields. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Nigerians[edit]

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

unneeded article, not notable FMSky (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double Hope Films[edit]

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

Article about a film production company that has been practically unsourced since 2012. I tried to source it myself before bringing it here but came up with nothing. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hawksworth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD, WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV. The current version of article is just a stats stub stating his streak of win in the National championship which is the only claim of notability for this article. It is also mentioned in New Zealand National Badminton Championships. Moreover there are no sources found which would be essential for passing the general notability guideline. zoglophie 11:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naxatra News Hindi[edit]

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

Neither website, nor any other source which shows the existence of such channel. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Toms[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, also some unreliable sources and disclosed payments. MirrorPlanet (talk) 09:29, 21 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Century[edit]

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

I fear this is a poor, WP:OR-violating essay. The first few paragraphs defining and analyzing the term broadly are unreferenced, then there is a random note about the existence of a documentary titled The Pacific Century, followed by two lengthy paragraphs on American policy in Asia/Pacific, based on sources that mostly do not even use this term. Perhaps this is a notable term (although this could be just redirect to Asian Century, which could discuss the usage of this term as well as of Asia-Pacific Century), but the current article makes a good case for WP:TNT. I can't even recommend a merge to Asian Century, given the above-described poor state of the article (OR about the main term+mostly irrelevant content about American policy in the region). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This Wikipedia article is the only reason I even know what "Pacific Century" means, so I'd prefer it not be deleted. I've seen the phrase used elsewhere and this was the first source. Thanks. 2600:8804:5A03:BB00:6265:C273:2376:543F (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pawar/Bhoyar[edit]

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

Article about one sub-caste Community in Rajasthan and looks like promoting a community. Not Notable. There already exists a parent article at Paramara dynasty, drafts created on the AfD subject were already declined at 1 & 2 -- iMahesh (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Olpak[edit]

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

President and chairman of the executive board of Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEİK), the sources cited are press releases, bio handouts or DEIK owned media. Subject fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipractitioner is a single-purpose account whose sole contribution to Wikipedia so far has been the creation of this article. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Anti-gender movement. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 Million March 4 Children[edit]

1 Million March 4 Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD tag placed by @Raladic: for WP:A7 and removed by an IP; I agree that the article does not show why it is significant, nor does it have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Its content, if even appropriate for Wikipedia, can be covered in articles such as anti-gender movement. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 13:07, 21 September 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 Big Brother Africa (season 6). Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon O[edit]

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

Big Brother Africa contestant, not winner: no record of enduring achievement or roles as an actor in film or TV, no charting recordings. Coverage presented is PR, interviews. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO; WP:NACTOR. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:02, 21 September 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 Big Brother 18 (American season). The detailed analyses of reference material leads to the conclusion that there is not enough to sustain an article, however large the number of them may be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Calafiore[edit]

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

Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't cut it by any length of the imagination. It just makes him bit-part reality star. They don't get articles. scope_creepTalk 15:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you don't like it?, and casting aspersions on my imagination makes me...ah...I don't know, can't imagine what. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is valid either. That is a completely false statement. Where is the coverage to support that. scope_creepTalk 15:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself cannot substantiate the claims in the article. There is no evidence that Calafiore ever played in a game for Colorado Rapids. – PeeJay 10:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how any of his reality TV appearances qualify as “significant roles”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to summarise:

So the majority of these references are social media fed clickbait that are pure trash in everybody's book. Looking at them of the 16 references in the first blocks, 9 are not independent of the subject, 2 are passing mentions, 2 are not significant nor in-depth and one is non-rs and one I can't see it is likely another clickbait site, by the quality of these. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY reference in the first blocks and there is NO evidence he was drafted. None at all. scope_creepTalk 11:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right! Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews, at least the couple I've looked at, are not just pure q and a, they give background, further information, and feature the subject. Take out the quotes and there is still enough material to count as a source. Dismissing such references discounts the full feature article status and factual or descriptive wording, so these should certainly be counted as independent and secondary sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop making false statements. Interviews do not count toward notability, particularly the majority of these that are using social media to drive their content model. That is established consensus They are lowest quality clickbait crap that is possible to imagine as a source, yet your supporting them. There is a limit to peoples patience. scope_creepTalk 15:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think with the Colorado Rapids thing though - which is clearly and easily verifiably incorrect, but also picked up by a lot of these sources - if you remove the coverage of this person that wasn't directly supplied by them, there seems to be precious little for this article to hang its hat on. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: No evidence he was drafted. Sorry. sp mistake. scope_creepTalk 15:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree with Scope creep and their (incomplete) assessment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clickbait articles aren't valid coverage in any kind of instance and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. They are not independent by definition. They are generated by software, by bots largely at the moment and as time goes on they will generated by AI, as is starting to happen now. They have no intellectual depth, they are merely surface, copied and pasted information from somewhere else. They are not independent by definition. They are used by sites to drive the companies advertising model. That is all they are for. Wikipedia is built on intellectual analysis and if your building articles based on what you have just said, then there is a real and serious problem here. Your stating a falsehood, essentially and following an ideology that is at odds with Wikipedia core policies on notability. If your using clickbait sites to support your articles, then you need to stop. Regarding passing mentions. They don't add up to anything. They have no intellectual depth. They are merely linking text, in the context of some other subject, and there is nothing that can be used prove something per WP:V. Your statement constitutes a fringe view, common to a core block of inclusionists who are willing to completely bypass or ignore consensus based notabilty standards to prove a point. The saddest thing about this as core content creator who I used to really value, due to the amount of articles you created, I wouldn't trust another word you said. scope_creepTalk 09:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Re: "Your statement constitutes a fringe view, common to a core block of inclusionists who are willing to completely bypass or ignore consensus based notabilty standards to prove a point. The saddest thing about this as core content creator who I used to really value, due to the amount of articles you created, I wouldn't trust another word you said." Who are you referring to here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Can you please clarify? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking to editor Ortizesp. Why did you quote my comment with red ink. scope_creepTalk 14:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, I found sources like [40], [41], [42], [43], among manymany more sources online. Clearly notable figure with mnany sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some minor news pieces and some interviews. GiantSnowman 19:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman Are you able confirm if any of the 30 sources currently used as citations, most of which mention the subject by name in the title, are inappropriate for Wikipedia? I'd like to start there, before addressing depth of coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As SC says, lots of non-independent and clickbait. You need to persuade me he is notable, not the other way around. GiantSnowman 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how this works, I'm just trying to first establish that the 30 sources currently used as citations are at least appropriate for Wikipedia. If you're saying no, can you please be specific about which publications are problematic and why? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Also they arent merely minor news pieces, and the inetviews do ahve secodnary coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to re-analyse what SC has already done and which I agree with. GiantSnowman 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC's "assessment" is a joke and ignores half of the sources already used as citations. This doesn't seem constructive and I'm confident the page will be kept, so I'll just move on and let others weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This focusing on berating other editors who have drawn different conclusions than you have after examining an article and its sources has to STOP now or blocks will begin to be handed out for incivility and casting aspersions. This is a focus on the article not on other contributors. Wikipedia succeeds because we have civil discussions among editors who hold a variety of points of view. AFD should not be a rubber-stamp process. Please limit your disagreement to source evaluation and not on other editors' values. If you can't discuss differences of opinion without snide insults, then you should stop participating in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1 [44] This is a routine PR annoucement of Cody Calafiore joining Big Brother. Its not independent.
  • Ref 2 [45] It is a clickbait site. States the sources are US Weekly and his instagram. So its not independent.
  • Ref 3 [46] Another clickbait site. Links to his instagram account. So its not independent.
  • Ref 4 [47] It has a number of direct comments from him, speaking to the site, so it is not independent.
  • Ref 5 [48] Unable to view it.
  • Ref 6 [[49] Passing mention in a 4-line paragraph. Not significant, nor in-depth.
  • Ref 7 [50] Another clickbait site. An interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 8 [51] Another clickbait site. The exact same story from Ref 7 above.
  • Ref 9 [52] Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.
  • Ref 10 [53] A routine annoucement that he is going Big Brother.
  • Ref 11 [54] This is a cast for "The Challenge" made up of small profile. Not in-depth.
  • Ref 12 [55] Another clickbait site. Not independent.
  • Ref 13 [56] Another clickbait site. Not independent.
  • Ref 14 [57] Single sentence mention as younger brother of Cody. Not significant.
  • Ref 15 [58] Another clickbait site. His wife.
  • Ref 16 [59] Another clickbait site. An interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 17 [60] Another clickbait site. Has the couples social media links to instagram. Social media driven. Not independent
  • Ref 18 [61] Another clickbait site "Speaking exclusively to the People magazine". An interview. Non-rs likely.
  • Ref 19 [62] Another clickbait site. His timeline. Not independent.
  • Ref 20 [63] Clickbait site. Content lifted from a youtube interview by Calafiore. Not independent.

So it looks like 5 new references have been added to the first two blocks. None of them are considered WP:SECONDARY sources that would establish notability. Instead its typical of a listing of PR coverage for a z-list celebrity. WP:Notability (people) defines three critieria to establish notability. The subject here fails on all three. They are neither worthy of note, nor remarkable nor significant or interesting. The WP:BLP crieria states Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. None of these are high-quality sources. scope_creepTalk 07:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this assessment and will continue asking the editor to leave me alone. Moving on to other parts of the encyclopedia... ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, I agree. I just read the article again and I can't find anything about him that seems in any way notable. None of those stints on The Challenge nor his one appearance on Big Brother resulted in a win, nor any press other than "This guy is appearing on [insert show here]." He got a tattoo and learned tae kwan do. Big whoop. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I looked at the first 15 sources and was unimpressed:
1: trivial mention in article on his brother Red XN.
2: low-quality ("Paul was born in Howell, New Jersey, to Parents Palu Jr. and Linda Calafiore. He graduated from high school in his hometown New Jersey before moving to Rutgers University. While in the university, Paul played for the Scarlet Knights football team and was on the stars.") amalgam of regurgitated web-scraped factoids Red XN.
3: semi-opinion piece mostly composed of quotes Red XN.
4: interview with very little independent encyclopedic commentary (maybe 1.5 sentences) Red XN.
5: blurb hyping TC:U 2 with basically no encyclopedic content Red XN.
6: passing mention Red XN.
7: tabloid trash with mostly quotes Red XN.
8: almost 100% quotes Red XN.
9: non-independent Red XN.
10: local-interest news with a small amount (~5-6 sentences) of independent content; not enough for me Red XN.
11: blurb in cast listicle Red XN.
12,13: tabloid trash by non-journalists Red XN.
14: passing mention Red XN.
15: interview with no independent content Red XN.
If the next 15 sources are similar to this then I !vote delete. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 24 September 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 08:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (Judaism)[edit]

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

There's no indication, either in the article or on the internet, that this topic actually exists. The article consists of two unsourced statements which partially define the topic, and two lists which aren't related to the topic. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found some references from both Sefaria and My Jewish Learning to establish notability as reliable references. Futurism (Judaism) is a bust but Jewish Futurism has some hits. Might want to change the title of article. Kazamzam (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any of these references, or the search that found them? The vashtimedia.com citation you added is specifically about futuristic Jewish literature, which is not what the bulk of the article is about. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:50, 21 September 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 Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Middleweight. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Bonfigli[edit]

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

Emilio Bonfigli

Stub about boxer who does not satisfy the current versions of boxing notability or Olympic notability. The only reference is a database entry. The Heymann criterion is to find two or more sources to establish general notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Middleweight Thanks, Cbl62. I should have thought of that myself. This provides info on him and allows time for sources to be found that would allow the article's recreation, if possible. Papaursa (talk) 22:46, 27 September 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 borderline, it seems to me that the references have been considered and found insufficient. Arguments based on the player having played in League 2 are not admissible, per the link provided by GiantSnowman. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Kotwica[edit]

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

This was just speedy deleted from pl wiki, which is often more inclusive than English, and the article doesn't strike me as meeting WP:NBIO. Minor player, sources fail SIGCOV (stats) or are press releases from the club he plays at (Cheltenham Town F.C.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Did not play internationally. At league career the best achivement is playing for fourth-tier in UK what is too few. Not big chance for career in future especially that now he plays in lower tiers. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as I couldn't find significant coverage of him. It doesn't matter what level someone plays at as GNG has to be passed. Dougal18 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources are routine transaction reports,[64] have little independent coverage,[65][66] or are non-independent and trivial.[67]
JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 24 September 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. It looks like there will be no source review forthcoming so I'll close this as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Won't Hurt...[edit]

This Won't Hurt... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

album that is not notable under WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. little more than a track listing, and none of this band's other albums have articles either. refs listed aren't significant secondary coverage either. StartOkayStop (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 23:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed references would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 21 September 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.

List of Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ S5A-0043Talk 02:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Direct recreation of the deleted article at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Air destinations AFD discussion. iMahesh (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion is flawed - this is not a recreation of the deleted article "List of TUI fly Netherlands destinations" as claimed - it is concerned with an entirely different airline and has been in existence since 2005. While many similar articles have been deleted recently, lets frame the discussion properly - this article does seem to be better sourced than many of these destinations lists, so there is probably more that warrants preserving.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale here is flawed as stated by Nigel Ish, so that should not be a reason considered in this case. As for the airline destinations itself, I checked through Google, and did find a few articles that discuss some destinations ARG serve [4] [5] [6] [7], so it seems to pass WP:NLIST. While there is a "needs updating" tag on the list section (dating back to 2021), WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There are some well-maintained lists of airline destinations that exist (List of Singapore Airlines destinations is an example), and I believe this article has the potential to be well-maintained as well (provided someone does it). Since the above-mentioned AFD lists a particular discussion on WP:VPP, personally I think this is a limited consensus as the discussion is not particularly active (only around 20-25 users participated in a period of 1 month) and the relevant Wikiprojects (eg WP:AIRLINES) were not informed properly, thus I'd personally not be convinced that the VPP is a good rationale. There was also a DRV that came after another AFD involving the SIA article, which eventually closed as keep. I also don't think this fails WP:NOTTRAVEL which was also mentioned in the discussion above. Lists of destinations are not the same as travel guides, because they only provide the destinations without the flights between each one of them. Taking the first few airports on the list as examples, is there a flight between Bahia Blanca and Catamarca? Is there a flight between Cordoba and El Calafate? A travel guide would tell me a definitive answer as to yes or no. This list, however, does not, and without the exact flights it is practically useless for travel information. This probably would be more of a concern if the airline operates flights out of only 1 hub (such as the SIA one which flies out of Singapore only), but with 2 hubs and domestic flights I don't think this is the case. S5A-0043Talk 11:09, 21 September 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) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsanul Haque[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. FatCat96 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 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. as there is disagreement among editors on whether the reviews that exist are sufficient to meet WP:NBOOKS. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History Upside Down[edit]

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

This book does not obviously pass WP:NBOOKS. No scholarly reviews have obviously percolated through to Google Scholar, and the one review posted to the page is from Middle East Forum, a polemical think tank that has been deemed an unreliable source. In any case, that is all of one review. If there are more reviews out there (and any from actually reliable sources), I have not found them. The only other sources on the page are the publisher and the book itself. The page was established in 2010 by an account that, by want of subsequent activity, was clearly an SPA that one might imagine likely had a COI in producing the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 6 September 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 03:16, 14 September 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! 02:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Most of the sourcing is from the Jewish world/perspective, so it is biased. The book has just enough to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just becaus eit is from jewish perspective does not make it biased PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are one-sided, but so long as the article here is neutral, it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding PaulGamerBoy360's comment; the problem is not Jewish perspectives, it's that the book and reviews are a right wing echo chamber. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kwGk2e0N3V4C&pg=PA335&dq=%22Sergem%22+tibet&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX3eKizrSBAxXCWEEAHZxJCNkQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sergem%22%20tibet&f=false
  2. ^ https://thenortheasttoday.com/states/sikkim/the-hardest-cheese-in-the-world-churpi/cid2526945.htm
  3. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hiVdDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=%22Sergem%22+tibet&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPrP_31LSBAxVTSkEAHV1NBrAQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sergem%22%20tibet&f=false
  4. ^ https://www.flightglobal.com/networks/aerolineas-argentinas-to-launch-flights-to-usa-from-aeroparque/153527.article
  5. ^ https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/09/aerolineas-argentinas-to-add-international-flights-during-the-summer-season/
  6. ^ https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/04/aerolineas-argentinas-increases-flights-to-italy/
  7. ^ https://simpleflying.com/48-million-loss-aerolineas-argentinas-best-financial-result/
  8. ^ "History upside down; the roots of Palestinian - ProQuest". Reference and Research Book News. ProQuest 199678671.
  9. ^ Romirowsky, Asaf (1 January 2009). "Review of History Upside Down". Middle East Quarterly.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I see that the MEQ reference was already discussed, I'll strike that. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to a weak keep - with the reviews from "Reference and Research Book News" and Simpson, there's just enough to balance the echo chamber reviews. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kelley (sailor)[edit]

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

Article is a stub with one line of text. Despite a flurry of media coverage in May 2023, I have concerns on the notability of this individual. Cssiitcic (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 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 08:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lo[edit]

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

This person mostly fails significant coverage, most of the references are PR and social media and YouTube links. Systumm (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (original author) Hello, appreciate your feedback here and would like to address your concerns. This individual clearly meets notability requirements as discussed in the "Creative Professionals" guidelines. They were the creator of two works that received significant coverage in periodical articles and reviews, many of which are referenced on this page.
With regards to references:
1. There are some PR/press releases referenced, however these are only used to verify basic facts. Additional references, including to discussion of the subject in a recent book, have been added to further meet significant coverage standards.
2. No social media links are referenced.
3. Two Youtube links that were referenced were used to access episodes uploaded by the station (KMVT, a reliable uploader and the content's originator). This is also supported by secondary reference (reference 6) However, given your feedback, I have updated and improved those citations to use the ((cite episode)) template. Jdweikler (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And just for further clarification, here are two references that most clearly meet the general inclusion threshold as outlined here (at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source.)
Reference 1: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/unconditional-documentary-screens-at-the-white-house/
Reference 14: Lui, Richard (2021). Enough About Me. HarperCollins/Zondervan. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-0310362395. Jdweikler (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I created a source assesment table as well to further clarify:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/unconditional-documentary-screens-at-the-white-house/ Yes Yes Yes 300+ word article specifically on the subject (Alex Lo) ✔ Yes
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/05/10/remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-by-first-lady-jill-biden-at-a-film-screening-at-the-white-house-of-unconditional-when-minds-hurt-love-heals/ Yes Yes No No discussion of subject ✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maine-woman-punches-bear-chased-dog-bear-bites-back-rcna92217 No Written by subject Yes No Includes bio for the subject and his work for NBC News ✘ No
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/press-release/new-bystander-intervention-animated-videos-show-methods-everyday-people-can-do-fight No No Press Release ? Quotes from subject. ✘ No
https://www.losaltosonline.com/magazine/media-education-has-evolved-but-the-studio-experience-endures/article_7bb6ac04-7e2e-11ec-9552-43c69bff6342.html Yes Yes ~ Subject is not main topic of the source material, but 30+ words specifically about subject ~ Partial
https://www.losaltosonline.com/archives/mv-chamber-of-commerce-honors-community-leaders/article_23e65196-5671-55b5-bbe9-39c1c5c04096.html Yes Yes No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/robotics-team-mentor-helps-south-bay-students-engineer-success/ Yes Yes ~ Quotes from the subject and just a few words on them. ~ Partial
https://www.bu.edu/admissions/tuition-aid/scholarships-financial-aid/first-year-merit/trustee/ Yes No Primary source for context ✘ No
https://www.bu.edu/econ/2023/08/14/econ-major-alex-lo-produces-documentary-on-caregiving-that-is-screened-at-the-white-house/ Yes Yes ~ Brief writeup (48 words) ~ Partial
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/new-documentary-highlights-young-veteran-caregivers-color-n1247480 Yes Yes No Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is the main subject of the source. ✘ No
Lui, Richard (2021). Enough About Me. HarperCollins/Zondervan. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-0310362395. Yes Yes Book published by HarperCollins/Zondervan Yes 2 pages (550+ words) ✔ Yes
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/525304-new-doc-from-msnbcs-richard-lui-examines-young-americans-who/ Yes Yes Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is the main subject of the source. ? Unknown
http://www.roku.com/ Yes ~ Video streaming listing No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20201008162239/https://variety.com/feature/2021-oscars-best-documentary-feature-predictions-1234784896/ Yes Yes No Subject not mentioned, but the film they produced is listed as an awards contender ✘ No
https://www.goldenglobes.com/articles/docs-unconditional-spotlights-heartrending-difficulties-caregiving Yes Yes No Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is the main subject of the source. ✘ No
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/saturday-may-27-scoreboard-fox-news-cnn-average-same-number-of-adults-25-54-in-primetime/531533/ Yes Yes No Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is noted here as being the top rated program in its timeslot. ✘ No
https://www.journal-isms.com/2023/07/aaja-picks-texas-for-2024-convention/ Yes Yes No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/621f898a98dc785cd663ab7b/t/64b1e5ab8b2e681bedab41ca/1689380268869/Inclusion%40Work+_+Black+Americans+2023.pdf No Subject is on advisory panel Yes No Trivial mention/bio ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Jdweikler (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count the first "green" source in the table above as notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person that would meet it for both works is Richard Liu, and not Lo. He was one of four co-producers (two of whom do not seem to meet notability either), and co-produced the second with a host of executive producers. The coverage on both works don't focus his role, unless it's in his alma mater's alumni news, and instead focuses on Liu, so the indication is that the role he played as a co-producer was not major in the way that FILMMAKER would dictate. Finally, all of your edits have been in relation to Alex Lo and things he's worked on. If you have a WP:COI, you must declare it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the policy standard is for the person to have "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". Being one of the two filmmakers who worked on the film to be invited to the White House for their work would seem to indicate that. And also as stated above, there are additional sources (including multiple pages in a major book, that discuss his work. Jdweikler (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
White House invites are not a great indicator of notability as usually it's a group of people. From what I can tell, Lo did not write or direct and the referencing on both works focuses on other contributors. Generally, the criteria for creatives in in relation to the creative side of the work and not co-producing. Additionally, the "major book" is by Richard Lui, the director of both documentaries that Lo was a co-producer on, and that he only is mentioned in only 2 of 256 total pages (and back-to-back, likely indicating one mention) in his book would suggest a less-than-major role in addition to the reference not being completely independent. Also the book never even hit on any of the prominent bestseller lists, so definitely not "major". Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book and other sources discuss his role on the films, which include responsibility for: selecting the individuals to be profiled/casting, coordinating production in the field, co-directing animated sequences, and overseeing postproduction and marketing. That too would indicate a very major role.
The book that references him does so several other times although they are trivial mentions. So I'm leaving those out and focusing just on the 550+ words that discussed his work. Jdweikler (talk) 02:15, 30 September 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. Please have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible Rename. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous & Offensive Trades[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria, unclear if this is an actual discrete category that multiple laws fall under rather than a common phrase. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep AS @James500 and @Лисан аль-Гаиб say this is a widespread theme in laws in the Commonwealth and laws regulating noxious trades exist in many, many countries today.
The article was in a sorry state, and as much as I dislike WP:TNT as a proposal I almost suggested it. Instead I've added some meat to the article, reduced the India-focus. As it stands it's barely encyclopedic but certainly enough to pass deletion. More hands would help.
As far as rename, my impression is that the more common term is "offensive trades" but I don't have stats to back that up.
Oblivy (talk) 06:17, 21 September 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. Feel free to start a discussion on the article talk page about a possible rename or just Be Bold and do it! Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London International Hot Air Balloon Festival[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asiricomedy[edit]

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

If someone requests for the source analysis I would do it. RATIONALE: The article is filled with interviews from different reliable sources making them non-independent and thus failing the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nigerian sources are to taken with a pinch of salt. As a Nigerian I know when something is done for promo. I can bet on that. Also, I have never heard of this comedian (which is not why I nominated it), so, he is not well known or noted here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:38, 14 September 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! 01:45, 21 September 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. It would help if sources in this discussion found their way into the article so there is not a return trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the Turtle[edit]

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

Lack of notable coverage. From analyzing the sources, they are either passing mentions of the group and don't cover the group in depth(Wachs' obituary, the NYT source) or they are primary sources(Rootsworld is an interview, one of the sources is just a video of their concert, and Marini's book, as far as I can tell, contains an interview with Wachs as coverage of the group.) I also found no independent/third-party and notable sources that could be used to improve the page.Jaguarnik (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group disbanded after Wachs died, so there isn't a whole lot of new news. I will see if I can find updates that are relevant. They have a dozen albums on an established record label, which is way above the notability criteria for a band. Their work is also significant from an ethnomusicology point of view. Behind each album is significant historical research, which involved travel all over the world to find historical records. Asbruckman (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added an additional cite to comments by an ethnomusicologist about the archival research that supports their music. Does that help at all? Asbruckman (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Joel Bresler, the publisher of www.sephardicmusic.org, one of the leading sources of information about Sephardic music on the web. VOT had a profound impact on the evolution of Sephardic music performance and recordings for numerous reasons. First, they released 12 albums, more than any other group. Second, they were well integrated into the *substantial* Boston Early Music community and so made quite an impression. Third, they were involved quite early, which increased their importance still further. Fourth, Ms. Wachs undertook substantial research including trips to Israel where she used the documentary print and sound resources at the National Sound Archive and (I believe) the Voice of Israel to collect repertory, tunes, performance practice, etc. Rather than remove this article - which seems to me off to a very solid start - I would suggest keeping it and letting the community embellish and expand it. Thanks for the chance to offer my thoughts. JB Discoguy (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is more in ProQuest. I didn't check any other databases or search engines. —siroχo 05:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hope Division[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Sputnikmusic review had to go because it wasn't from staff, but the other three reviews (which were already there, just not in ref tags) should be plenty. Both AbsolutePunk and Alternative Press are listed at WP:RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And it is true that albums do not have to chart or have awards to be considered notable. But it helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria Academy[edit]

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

I looked--there is really no secondary reliable sources that actually discuss it, rather than just mention it and confirm its existence. Not notable by our standards (and a likely COI creation, and formerly a puff piece). Drmies (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Gyong-chol (North Korean football midfielder)[edit]

Pak Gyong-chol (North Korean football midfielder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Pyong-chol (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is a source, but no sigcov. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* other Brachy08 (Talk) 01:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wi-man[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Hyon-u[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Yong-nam[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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