< March 22	March 24 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Riffee[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable in any regard. Vanity creation. Nirva20 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see enough citations to his publications to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and dean isn't a high enough administrative position for #C6. Nothing else in the article can be used to make any kind of case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I don't see any WP:SIGCOV otherwise. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. nf utvol (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 14:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He easily passes WP:PROF#C5. I updated the page with a link. People seem to be simply voting to delete without doing a basic search on the subject. Contributor892z (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus to Keep and no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tankeshwar Kumar[edit]

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

Academic who does not have a publication record or awards that would pass WP:NPROF, plus at least one of the sources does not validate claim in article. The page was declined via AfD, then moved by editor to main and a contested draftify. Deletion seems appropriate as there is no evidence of an attempt to satisfy notability requirements. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Our article claims that he has been head of two new-ish regional universities in India, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology and Central University of Haryana. (In India, vice chancellor is head of a university; chancellor is a ceremonial post.) Perhaps the nominator could address whether this passes WP:PROF#C6? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about this, particularly in the context of the recent discussions at WT:NPROF#Deans, vice-presidents, vice-chancellors, etc. As discussed there in most cases notability is established independent of the position. I was influenced by the (very) spotty history of how this page evolved, plus that reference [6] does not validate him being a NAS member, the official site reference is needed. This may be a case for a further community discussion on WP:PROF#C6 which I feel is warranted. (While some months ago I accepted it as an OK criteria, I am now dubious.) Let's see what others think, I don't have to always be right. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you don't think that reference verifies his membership in NASI (not the US NAS); it's a newspaper story that says exactly that. I replaced it though with another from another newspaper that specifically talks about his election to NASI [1]. Anyway that should also be enough for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His citation record is good [2] but in a high-citation field, so I would prefer not to rely on WP:PROF#C1. And I have no idea whether UGC Professor at Punjab University (his title prior to becoming VC) is the sort of thing that would count for #C5. Instead let's go with #C3 and #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for strongly disagreeing with you, but he definitely does not qualify for WP:PROF#C1 in Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), the US term for his field. He has 4 decently cited reviews on popular topics in reasonable journals, but not those with the highest impact factors and he is not one of the big names in those topics. He has several ~50 cited papers in decent impact journals (e.g. JPCC), but again nothing original in a high impact journals. (Nowadays even to get hired as Asst Prof you need articles in the top journals.) His publication record would just about get him tenure in the US, but not promotion to full professor at a major university. In his area 50 is notablable, 250 puts your name into the nobel pot. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I did not word my comment carefully enough to be understood. I am neither claiming that he passes #C1 nor basing my keep opinion on #C1. I am using different criteria.

As for impact factors: please no. Judging someone by whether a few of other people's papers in the same journals happen to have sudden early citation spikes? It's meaningless numerology. If you're going to judge by whether the work is well-cited, judge by whether it is well-cited, not by whether it is well-cited-adjacent. If you're trying to avoid citation counting for something more meaningful, then avoid citation counting, don't just keep doing it but more indirectly. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked not just at the citations of his papers, but also the topics and the journals -- it was not "just counting". For instance his reviews/work on nanotubes is not even slightly close to that of Sumio Iijima or Pulickel Ajayan.

In terms of journal impact factors, sorry but again I strongly disagree with your comments. It really does take a lot more to publish in Science (journal) than J. Phys. Chem. C. Not too far from the difference between a GA and a Start-Class article. Academics, even PhD students and some undergrad look at impact factors, as do Chairs, Deans and funders. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The individual the VC (highest functionary) heading a Central (Federal) public university. Appointed by the President of India after open-applications, search and selection by the Ministry of Education. Similarly, has held VC position at a State public university. I do not agree with the nominator's view to cross-check everything academic from citations, and journal publications as also nominated here, given the flaws and MLM type model of this now discussed far more openly than ever, it is time that we keep academia free and open without any gate-keeping. Non-relevant: There have been many people who have contributed much without joining the feudal/elite academic circles. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As David Eppstein pointed out, subject at a minimum meets #C3 and #C6 of WP:NPROF - and might meet #C5. A subject need only meet one of these criteria to justify notability; this one meets at least two. Qflib (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming everything is true, he easily passes the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Troiano[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability requirements as per WP:MUSICBIO. If you go through the edit history it looks like the page was written by the subject, so might also be WP:PROMO. InDimensional (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is mentioned in this Windsor Star article on Guy Lombardi. The "Quartet moves tuba to center stage" item which is paywalled looked like it might have some coverage. I was able to see the full article via Wikipedia Library access and it turns out to be part of a community events type of article. I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability; only more announcements about playing at local libraries and such. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Autobiographical page of a local community musician/school teacher without any significant RS coverage. My search found him mentioned in some articles in the Suffolk County, NY editions of Newsday, but only in association with the Long Island Tuba Quartet or local community events -- nothing in depth about him. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should be deleted for all the reasons stayed above. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per specifically WP:NBAND and generally WP:SIGCOV. There is scant coverage in the current version of the page, and almost nothing in Google News. He has virtually no social media presence, outside of YouTube. That's surprising. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom etc --Devoke water 20:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Chipungu[edit]

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

Lugstub that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of a suitable redirect Looks to be a WP:GNG and given we don't have any lists for Zimbabwean cricketers currently, there's no suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinashe Nenhunzi[edit]

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

Lugstub that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a WP:GNG fail this one, and with no lists of Zimbabwean cricketers there's no redirect here also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baral Agreement[edit]

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

This article is a den of original research. If you actually read the article, it does not significantly cover the agreement at all, except in one unsourced section. For the most part, it duplicates the content of 1955 Poonch uprising. The sources in the article do not verify statements made within, and searches for "Baral agreement" come up empty. There are serious WP:competence is required issues with the article creator and I will probably file an WP:ANI report soon Mach61 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. Mach61 21:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging users who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh Soudhan Wars and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhanoti, also by this user: Fram, Svartner, TimothyBlue, HistoriesUnveiler, Xymmax, Rosguill. I believe this falls under WP:APPNOTE Mach61 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and seconding the apparent CIR issues. The citations for this article read like the editor simply searched "Sudhan" in Google Scholar and added a citation to every result, regardless of content. Searching myself for terms like "Baral" 1956, "Baral Agreement", etc on Google Scholar and Google Books returned nothing useful. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publishers like Oxford University Press and Springer are not samizdat they are very respected publishers, article just needs a little bit of editing that's all.--TheQirim (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you demonstrate that any of the cited sources actually mention a "Baral Agreement" or otherwise address this topic? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might be notable, but right now, it's a farrago of original research and random books. Even if cited in a few pages in two reliable sources, that's not significant coverage Bearian (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources using this name. Those in the article are, as far as I can tell, about the 1955 Poonch uprising or the History of Azad Kashmir more broadly and only mention this agreement in passing, if at all. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the comment by Rosguill. Lagdo22 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2024 (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!} 02:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Social Forum[edit]

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

Unsourced, could not find sources, and does not meet GNG. DrowssapSMM 17:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. DrowssapSMM 17:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no sourcing in the article aside from one inline external link to the organisations "about" page but it is no longer there as the site appears to have been taken over. I can find no sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2024 (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!} 00:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6mm Optimum[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable concept, unable to find WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV. PROD was rejected because a magazine article exists, but that is a primary source written by the person who created this hypothetical round. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no independent coverage about this concept. It's just one person's opinion on an optimal caliber. -- Whpq (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one non-notable person's opinion is original research; writing about that is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. I could have been gentler in 2006, but in 2024, everyone knows what a hunting license is, and that we are not Hyde Park Corner. Go to X or what they used to call Twitter. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (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} 06:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aa Bhi Ja O Piya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM Tehonk (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 refs. ~~Not opposed to keep, but~~ opposed to deletion. ~~If coverage is judged insufficient, redirect to List of Hindi films of 2022~~.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--->changing to Keep in light of 2nd review (see below).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First added link is a press release as it can be seen from from URL structure, writer name as "ANI PR" and the disclaimer at the end: "This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content." These press releases can't be used to determine notability. Its "strong box office start" claim also contradicts the second link's "opening: very poor" statement. Tehonk (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, don’t use it, then, and feel free to remove it from the page. It’s a mirror of a link I did not manage to format properly. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) PS- I took the liberty to do it myself and put the original ANI link mentioning the contradiction you have noted.[reply]

See comment below, Mushy Yank. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it. I consider the film meets GNG. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection from editors, especially nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of deleting per NOTDIRECTORY, apart from insufficient coverage, the "widely distributed" part of the criterion doesn't seem to be met either. Tehonk (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all sources are listings and announcements. Nothing to truly support notability in general or filmic terms. Wikipedia is a not a collection of random information nor a directory of film titles. -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a second review that saves the article, per WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM requires reviews from nationally known film critics and not just any review in any publication. Pankaj Pandey, the author of the text in Raj Express, does not satisfy aforesaid criterion. We still only have about one half of a review-cum-advertorial. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete While Raj Express is an independent and reliable source that can be used because of its editorial oversight, the other source from Film Information cannot be considered an independent review. It was posted by Film Information desk without any specific author, and these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding. So, this film does not meet WP:NFILM with only one review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why Komal Nahta's FIlm Information should be considered unreliable nor not independent. As for the general assumption that these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding., applying it to the present case does not seem exactly obvious.... just look at the review. If that is a PR data copy-paste, with such PR who needs enemies?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter who owns Film Information, but for Indian films, I believe the review should be from a named critic because there are many websites that publish paid reviews and articles. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which does really not seem to be the case here but thank you for your reply. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December. I could not find top critics reviewing this movie or any major known websites with any coverage on the film other than the synopsis. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm seeing No consensus right now. This might be time for a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the sources are press releases/announcements. ANI is marginally reliable at best and neither article was written by them. One is attributed to SRV which is a digital marketing agency and the other to NewsVoir which is a press release service. I share DreamRimmer's concern about Film Information insofar as there is not a named author and it is not a widely used source so does not appear to meet "nationally known critic" per WP:NFILM. That leaves maybe one critical review which is not enough. No issue with redirecting though. S0091 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Film Information and Raj Express reviews both look usable to me. In particular Film Information describes itself as "the most widely read film trade magazine in the film industry and is known as the industry’s Bible since 49 years. Founded by late Shri Ramraj Nahta, it is being run by his son, Komal Nahta, since 1993 when Shri Nahta passed away." That is as something at least trying to be a reliable source and not a fan site. Note also that the review is negative enough that it is pretty clear not a paid ad. Also, the Bhaskar.com source looked probably reliable to me as reportage of rather than copying a press release, but I can't read the whole thing. In short I would rate the sources as just over rather than just short of the WP:NFILM line. If there is no consensus to keep the article, a redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December is certainly a reasonable ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable short. The sources are not impressive. Even the better sources fail to establish notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two reviews cited in the discussion appear to be enough. Komal Nahta, the writer of Film Information, appears to be a subject matter expert in film because he is relied upon by RSes, for example: [3] and [4]. Raj Express is an RS that appears to circulate in several major cities in India. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 1 April 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davies (headmaster)[edit]

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

Not convinced of notability here. I don't think that everyone who has been stripped of their knighthood is notable enough. BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Crime, and United Kingdom. BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't also see that as Notability and hence, since it may be important to Wikipedia, I suggest redirecting to Copland Community School and Technology Centre Foundation. Otuọcha (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence about this, so interested to hear others' views. The article on the school already covers these events well. There was a lot of coverage of the fraud in RS, and I don't think WP:BLP1E applies as the third condition is not met. There also must have been coverage of Davies at the time he was knighted. I guess I'm leaning weak keep, but happy to be convinced otherwise. Tacyarg (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knight is clearly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, precedent and consensus. No article on a verified knight has ever been deleted at AfD. And for good reason, since knighthoods are not handed out in cereal packets. Only two or three dozen are conferred every year in a country of 67 million people. There's also easily enough coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to this school, I say we keep this.

It's important to have this so, this doesn't happen again. (Stealing from children's education) 2A00:23C7:D00A:E601:EC8B:7A5F:E4C:B65D (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. You may want to read this. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More work needed. If he was awarded a Knight, which is one of the highest British honours, then there is notability. My concern is about the teacher stuff. However, if the award was because of his service to teaching and a case of one event for fraud (on teaching noting) with took significant amount of coverage. Without prior doubts, vote keep. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Reluctant as he is far from being an admirable individual, but keep as he is clearly notable, whatever one might prefer. Athel cb (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past outcomes. The consensus has been since at least 2007 that principals, headmasters, and school district superintendents are not notable - even if they get in the news for allegations of fraud or aiding and abetting a bombing - absent ongoing and significant coverage in reliable sources. If the consensus has changed, we need at least a few dozen experienced voices to chime in. This discussion needs to be re-listed, or many articles need to be re-created, for that reason. Keeping this article opens Pandora's box. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As a headmaster he is imho not notable enough, being knighted proves that he has done something good (but more sources are welcome) that makes him notable. Unfortunately, it is the false accounting and loss of his knighthood that makes him notable. Just. The Banner talk 00:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He did not receive his knighthood for a reason that is notable enough to have received SIGCOV in reliable sources, and I have not been able to find any. He obtained his knighthood as part of a Labour granting of knighthoods to people related to schools, for his work turning his school around in terms of performance. See [5]. The only SIGCOV is of his loss of knighthood, which fails BLP1E because losing an award is not significant in itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 31 March 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATunes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. The Quigley source in the existing article isn't reliable, nor are any other sources I could find online. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first AfD contains some sources that could establish notability. Two of the links are rotted and I couldn't find any archive of them. The other two are fairly short reviews, no more than a couple of paragraphs. I'm leaning slightly in favor of delete because I don't think this coverage is clearly extensive, but if there is consensus otherwise, I can understand that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 16 March 2024 (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!} 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A download page with a description is probably not significant coverage. The article is mostly a list of features, I would keep as an entry on Comparison of free software for audio. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per IgelRM. popodameron ⁠talk 00:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The scope of the Comparison of free software for audio list is "notable free and open source software". Since this software is not notable, the article should be deleted and the entry removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The discussion is straying from being about this particular series alone to being about series articles in general; that discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?. Depending on the results of that broader discussion, this one may be worth reopening; but for now, we have no appetite for deletion. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safehold[edit]

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

Collection of text summarized from pages on the constituent novels and the references only concern individual books. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK, and WP:BKD, does not provide the reader with anything that could not be gleaned almost as easily from just a directory of wikilinks to the existing pages. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SS parent of substantially notable individual books. We keep these around for pretty much any series, per NLIST and SALAT. It's still entirely likely that the books are discussed as a series--the nominator does not articulate any BEFORE attempts to find such coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick perusal of Google shows that this series is most commonly called "The Safehold Series" and it is described in blog posts, Reddit threads, Goodreads, Amazon and every other bookstore, Audible, publishers' sites... most of which are not independent RS. Epic Stream seems to be the one thing on Google News that appears to be RS discussing the series as a whole. Possibly RS discussions include Elitist Book Reviews and Most Recommended Books which don't appear to be blatantly commercial, but it's hard to definitively classify them as more than topical blogs. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a dedicated list under David Weber bibliography, the article is just WP:ALLPLOT with an irrelevant reception section bolted onto the end. Book series can also demonstrate notability as a shared setting, which Safehold fails in the same manner you described above. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you proposing a redirect to the relevant section of David Weber bibliography, given that this is clearly a common enough name to be worth a redirect? Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, sure. And/or just a list of sequels under Off Armageddon Reef with an extra detail or two on the overarching setting. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both Safehold and Safehold series would be reasonable redirects if this is how it ends up closing. I still think keeping this as a list and trimming inappropriate plot commentary is preferable to deletion, but there are worse alternatives. The Honorverse is the only other David Weber series that has its own article. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is preferable IMO, to my knowledge appending a "series" to an article title is only necessary in cases like the Culture where both the setting and the books have articles independent of one another. It also messes with the ability to follow MOS:TITLE with italics as you have to mess around with pipes to display Culture series rather than Culture series or Culture series, which kinda defeats the point of leaving a redirect in the first place. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens Good find. I'd call Epic Stream reliable, the article is written reasonably well and signed by a real person (generative AI is becoming a real problem these days), and the site has extensive about us info and claims to have internal review process: [6]. The other two links, sadly, don't seem useful for anything outside a list of books and maybe, maybe, the first one can be used as a review for the first book but it seems blog-level. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens. Also helpful to have an overview of the series. Murray Langton (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a mess (there is no denying 90% of the article is WP:FANCRUFT - way too much plot summary), but this is also a series I like which may color my judgement (I'd like to see this rescued and I'll see what I can do). Sigh. My current search is not showing any reliable sources discusing this as a series. Some books in the series may have stand-alone notability (see Safehold#Reception). Off Armageddon Reef for example should be good as it is. The others may or may not, I'll be adding what I can do the individual book pages first (reviews) and ping User:Cunard and User:Siroxo for help. PS. Note I've added a source that discusses the series (first two books) but it is, sadly, just a fanzine. Let's see what else we can dig up. PPS. ISFDb lists no reviews outside first two books, although some were nominated for award(s). I've added all information (reviews and awards) to the relevant book entries. PPPS. I'll add some Polish reviews but they are sadly from fanzines (ex. Fahrenheit (fanzine)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pinging User:Onel5969 who boldly redirected some later chapters to the series (I concur they did not look notable at that point, similar to some of the ones we still have, sadly). --03:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether or not the series as a whole meets the in-depth requisite of GNG, the page would need multiple sources discussing the series beyond individual works in order to pass.

Like a Mighty Army is the only page I'd consider MISSING if its immediate sequel and prequel are both notable, the other two are recent enough to leave be for a short while longer. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Orchastrattor Problem with LaMA is that all I (we) have for it is a single Polish fanzine review ([7]). That's not enough... :( Also, @ReaderofthePack just in case they are interested in this series/books and can find some sources. I am running on fumes here (Polish fanzines :>). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the main article for books in the series. It does have coverage in various citations.[8] Knox490 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Knox490 Fail, go to jail, do not collect $200. Sigh. You do realize that the single citation you linked is about the useof this term in a totally different work? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Offhand this looks like it's probably notable as a series. The main things I'm looking at are as follows:

Several of the entries have placed on the NYT bestseller list for hardcover fiction. This is pretty much the main list for fiction, so this would be a nod towards notability.
Some reviews for the books in reliable sources, particularly for the first two in the series.
It seems like the individual books have meh levels of notability with the exception of the first book, which has a stronger argument towards this just based at a first glance.

My general rule of thumb is that it's better to have a single series page than a handful of wimpy individual pages for books with lukewarm notability. So far I think it would likely be better to rehaul the main page and just redirect any of the individual books there. I don't know that we really need an independent page for any of them, but offhand it seems like there is probably enough coverage to justify a series page. I'll do a bit of a dive, though, before making any true official judgment since I haven't taken a deep look at the sourcing already present on Wikipedia and the arguments against here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've decimated all but the most basic intro plot. I think it can be selectively re-added later with much, MUCH lighter and more succinct info, but for now part of what needs to be shown is that it's not just a plot dump. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of characters might be a good direction to take with reintroducing the plot, you can include some notes on their larger series-wide arcs but it would still be formatted in a way to justify a separate series page instead of just regurgitating info from child pages (assuming said children are either kept or left open for restoration later). Orchastrattor (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably add a short list of characters later, after bulking up the other sections. I've built out the themes area quite nicely and I took a broom to the reception section and separated it into reviews and the NYT/sales portions. I summarized the NYT stuff so it's not just a list. I hate listing it out like that and try to put it into prose if I have the time, they're not really pleasing to the eye. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the subject of the page - the topic as a series rather than a parent collection of other topics - has not been demonstrated to pass GNG. A list of the books already exists elsewhere so a clean delete of the page and some keeps where appropriate of the other books was my original nom to follow GNG and BKD to the letter, but I guess keeping the parent and deleting the children would be preferable to keeping absolutely everything. The issue there is that again the parent doesn't pass GNG so you will need a good argument for WP:Ignore all rules if that is where the discussion heads. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a series cannot inherit notability from individually notable works or are you saying that there was/is not enough in the article to show where a page is justified in comparison to a basic list on Weber's bibliography?

If it's the first, then I have to disagree with you. A series inherits notability from the individual works as long as the series is an official one. IE, fans can't call three unrelated books by a single author a series and say it's notable.

If it's the latter, that's something that can be rectified by way of coverage in other sources. If notability is already established by way of the individual books, it becomes a problem of working on the page to show where it's not just a collection of plot. We can resolve that by drawing on various sources - interviews, forewords, coverage, and so on to fill in the other sections. Theme and element discussions are common features in reviews, for example. You just have to look for the specific keywords.

I'm willing to do the work and have already done a fairly massive cleanup of the article - I've added small sections on themes, development, and release. These need more work, but I wouldn't say that it's a huge barrier. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue that novel series cannot inherit notability from the individual, official works then I would suggest that you bring this up at NBOOK. The general rule of thumb here is that series is one of those areas where the individual books give notability because they are the series. Coverage of the individual books count towards the series because in almost every case they are discussing how the individual work builds upon the series as a whole. Awards and honors perhaps would be more specifically for the book but that's still an area where the individual parts lend notability towards the whole.

It's not like a situation where we're arguing that notability for one of Weber's other series or standalone books would give notability for all of his other works. Just that coverage for books in the series gives notability for that series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of GNG being the General NG is that it's the baseline other topics can defer to when they do not have a standalone NG to use instead. New guidelines get proposed and rejected plenty often enough, if a "rule of thumb" has enough consensus to become policy then it's no longer a rule of thumb.

Like I said I'm sure people here would be happy to hear out an IAR argument but if there is no policy for it then it has to be a case of IAR specifically, I've had stuff rejected from AFC over far less pressing issues than is seen here; It's rather irresponsible to talk about inheriting series notability like it's an established NG when no such policy exists.

NBOOK is also very spotty towards the newer end of the series, as discussed above the two most recent titles still don't have articles a year or more after release and there is even a case of one of the books being skipped over even with its direct sequel and prequel both being notable enough. No one would publish an article on a parent series if only one or two of its books were notable, so your rule of thumb needs a specific cutoff point in order to be applied. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that NBOOK covers series. The thing with GNG is that it isn't a one size fits all type of deal. Nor is inherited notability. It's meant to keep people from arguing something like "All of Patrick Swayze's films are notable because he is notable." Saying that the individual, notable parts of a series cannot be used to establish notability for the main whole is kind of like saying that we can't use an author's books to establish notability for the author themselves.

While yes, the NAUTHOR criteria does specifically say that notable works can make someone notable, I would like to say that people would still argue for the books giving notability even if the criteria didn't exist. There's nothing out there that specifically says that the individual parts cannot give notability to the main whole.

This is absolutely and positively the type of thing that would need to get discussed before making any blanket statement because this is not the same thing as someone trying to claim notability that is not theirs so they can have a biographical article, which is what NOTINHERITED is meant to cover. Stating that the notability of individual works cannot establish notability for the main series is a very, VERY big statement. It would basically require that we take a new look at EVERY series page out there, regardless of whether it's about books, film, photographs, or what have you because by large it has been assumed that the notability of the smaller parts of a larger whole does give notability to said whole. It's not a small or simple thing that you're stating, saying that books in a series can't count towards notability.

I will bring this up at NBOOK and ask others to take a look at this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any notability guidelines for book series beyond BKD, and equivalent WP:N guides for things like music recordings don't seem to grant any notability based on constituent works. The reviews can mention aspects of the series that would be good to cite in an established article, however if they are only mentioning it as a parent topic of the actual focus of the review then it fails the in-depth requirement of GNG. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue here is that the lack of specific detail doesn't automatically mean that something is forbidden or that an existing guideline doesn't cover something. I've had AfDs close before with the consensus that a series page would be better than individual book articles, even when there's not a lot of coverage for the series as a topic. I think this is one of those areas where it wasn't specifically mentioned because it was assumed that the individual parts of a main whole would establish overall notability. Since it's getting brought up, I think the better option would be to hold off on any deletion here, since there is precedent for keeping series articles when there are notability granting sources for the books. And to then discuss this further at NBOOK because this is absolutely an area where discussion is needed. Then if the consensus is that series should not be covered by NBOOK and need their own, independent sourcing, the series can be re-nominated for deletion. Books and creative works that are part of a series is pretty different from what GNG is often used to cover (in the absence of a more specific guideline), which is usually biographies and businesses. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been precedent in the past with AfDs that the notability for individual parts of a series can establish notability for the main parent series - even if the sourcing for those books do not go into depth about the overall series. You can see my above comments for further detail, but the gist is that since these books are part of the whole, coverage for the novels can be seen as coverage for the whole since each book builds on the existing storyline. Merging everything into a single article for the first book would run the risk of putting undue weight on the series or providing incomplete coverage when more sourcing is available and a more reasonable compromise would be to have a main series page.

The argument for whether or not series can gain notability for their individual pieces is something that should absolutely be discussed at NBOOK before the article is deleted. (If the consensus of that is that there must be individual coverage, then of course this should be renominated.) To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature. Not all of it, but quite a bit, so if this is going to happen we need to discuss it first. GNG is not a one size fits all scenario and this is one of those areas where NOTINHERITED, in my opinion, does not apply. It would only apply if we were to argue that the series is notable because some of Weber's other series are notable. Arguing that series can only be notable if there is specific coverage of the whole feels a little like it's defeating Wikipedia's purposes, to be honest because it feels like we're arguing that a whole person cannot become notable because the coverage only covers what they can do with their hands and feet. Plus from a deletionist's perspective the series page is more efficient because then we eliminate the need for individual series pages as the main series page covers the books far more efficiently. (To be perfectly honest, I think most series should have only one main series page and not individual book articles unless there is a large amount of coverage to justify this.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just feels a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the goal is to reduce the amount of useless pages, then a series page accomplishes this. It would also likely prevent recreation of said useless pages too. (Of course notability for the books would need to be established, I'm not arguing against that.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can also bring this up at WP:3O, if you wish. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing it up at the RS noticeboard may not be a bad idea, by which I mean to ask them to comment at the post I made at NBOOK. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Authors are just covered under N Creative Professional, which has very clear guidelines for how and when the notability of a creation translates to the notability of the creator. An author is a type of creative professional, a shared chronology and setting is not a type of book. As it stands the article is just an intersection between GNG and BKD. As I said above I'm not too strongly against the conditional keep of deleting the children instead of the parent topic; The difference can essentially be said to be that one follows GNG to the letter and BKD to the spirit, while the other follows BKD to the letter and GNG to the spirit, I just prefer the former because that's how I interpret GNG.

On that note I think this is a large enough thread to use RFC instead of 3O; Jclemens (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs) seemed to be working off of something closer to my interpretation of GNG than yours, I'll ping them here in case they aren't watching the discussion.

I will also admit your edits have improved the article quite substantially, I would still say it's not strictly necessary from a subjective standpoint but from an objective one it's at least no longer fancrufty enough to damage the credibility of the actually important parts of the encyclopedia just by existing on the same servers as them.

To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature.

To be blunt in return, that's just going to devolve into ILIKEIT. If all this affects is niche genre fic about guns and spaceships I wouldn't exactly be overcome with grief at the loss. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been pinged to comment, I believe that if a series of books exist, (as described above) and at least two entries are notable, then a series article should exist for both navigation, including overall content not specific to any one book, and including specific content for non-notable entries that don't deserve their own article. If there's one thing Wikipedia editors routinely get wrong, it's what NOTINHERITED actually means. Applying it in the procrustean manner that would suggest a series of notable books needed coverage as a series to exist as a separate article isn't the worst take on it, but it's certainly not encyclopedic. Consider list articles in general--how is a book series article different than a list? Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens It would be good to get this estabilished as a notability guideline following an RfC or such. I'd support it, probably. It's weird to have some books in the series be notable but have nothing covering the rest. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reader started a discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, your input would be welcome. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Stand-alone lists have strict notability requirements same as everything else, if anything a "List of Safehold novels" would be even easier to argue deletion for than a mainline article since the SAL NG is just a direct application of GNG rather than a spinoff like NBOOK. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only exception to NSAL is navigation, which we already discussed above for Weber's bibliography. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop thinking like a Wikilawyer. Start thinking about what will serve our readers best. Notability is, and will always remain, a guideline not a policy for the very important reason that it should be implemented with flexibility and common sense, caveats that do not apply to V, NOR, NPOV, etc. If you think that the novels entirely lack enough RS material with which to even build a list, then suggest merging them to the author's bibliography--arguing that the parent article should be deleted is perplexingly reader-unfriendly. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're already on the list, delete vs merge would just be semantics. If a topic isn't important enough to generate RS then being reader friendly would mean redirecting readers to the section of a bibliography rather than saddling then with a pile of meaningless fancruft. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful using the term fancruft because well, what could be considered fancruft is highly debatable. I admittedly would agree with you on overly long plot synopses and character lists as far as fancruft goes, but there is encyclopedic value in covering a series' themes, reception/sales, and so on. This is why I made sure to stay away from fansites and instead stuck to using or keeping the author or reliable sources (major genre publications like Reactor or outlets like Locus and the NYT). If the publications met their guidelines for inclusion that implies a wider range of interest than just the fanbase.

Genre fiction, particularly sci-fi, tends to reflect issues and mindsets of when it was written. Tons of academics and researchers have written on this at length, covering the themes, sales, and basically the info that I've added/improved in the article. Given Weber's fame and notability, it's not unreasonable to expect that someone might come to Wikipedia for information on this. Just redirecting this to a bibliography page (when there are RS to establish cumulative notability) would strip Wikipedia of content that could be of genuine interest and use. Note: I'm not arguing this from a perspective of WP:ILIKEIT - I don't argue for inclusion unless I believe the topic is notable.

Basically, we need to make sure that we aren't assigning zero encyclopedic value to it because the topic is of no interest to us personally. For example, I'm not a reader of David Weber and typically don't read sci-fi so I wouldn't have come to this page unless I was told it needed work. I work on these articles because I want others to be able to find this information. This is all kind of straying off topic, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Math-U-See[edit]

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

Cannot find any reference to Math-U-See - other than advertisments for the materials. It may have won awards from Home Schooling organsations but I cannot find any firm evidence of that. Newhaven lad (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Mathematics. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no secondary coverage, just adsHi! (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also cannot find any news coverage on this company.Bradelykooper (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Doctor of Diplomacy[edit]

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

Article is part of a walled garden of other articles connected to a fraudulent institution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came across this problem the other day and added a PROD tag to Diplomatic Academy of London. This article was clearly created as spam by a single-purpose account, and it's disappointing it was moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer in this state. We have effectively perpetuated a nonsense and given credence to a fraudulent institution for over 15 years. Searching "Professional Doctor of Diplomacy" returns nothing other than Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and Facebook. AusLondonder (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, no coverage, non-notable and possibly non-existent qual. Tacyarg (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't look notable even if it exists.Tehonk (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Federal Credit Union[edit]

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

I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability for this credit union. The one reference in the article is a dead link but the article is from a local business magazine or newspaper so scope is limited. Whpq (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately I have discovered today that we have quite a few utterly unencyclopedic articles on completely non-notable credit unions, some created by single-purpose spam accounts. Like this example, they completely fail WP:ORGCRIT. Many have few or no secondary sources. This article was also created by a single-purpose account as spam. AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did get some hits on ProQuest but they were all trade publications, local routine coverage, brief mentions or based on their comments. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press Service[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12#Associated Press Service. The nominator of the RfD did not find any evidence that the Associated Press Service still exists. Participants observed that the entity appeared to have gone offline midway through 2023, and there weren't enough sources to establish notability. Sources that do appear in the stub are no longer working. Jay 💬 17:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Pakistan. Jay 💬 17:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I never heard of APS before. Seems like a self published source. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No evidence that APS still exists, let alone that it's notable. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2024 (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!} 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Elliott[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress and singer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for actresses or musicians. As always, actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the inclusion test for an actor doesn't hinge on simply listing acting roles, it hinges on showing that she's had a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about her performances: biographical coverage about her, film or television reviews which single out her performance for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she has won or been nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
But this is literally just "actress who has had roles", doesn't even say one word about her purported musical career at all after calling her a singer-songwriter in the lede, and is referenced entirely to a Twitter tweet and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on an unreliable blog, neither of which constitute support for notability. And the article has never been better referenced than this in the past, either, so the problem can't be solved just by reverting to an older version.
Absolutely nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some limited coverage [9] of a performance she puts on (stage show), but nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Bearcat and Oaktree. She's far from passing WP:GNG let alone WP:NMUSIC or WP:NACTOR. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. This is an easy call. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (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!} 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Taylor[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC as not having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Very poorly sourced - citations are Twitter, single sentence name drops, a dead citation to her employer titled "WATCH:Pippa And Toby Took Their Relationship To The Next Level..." and two primary citations to Basingstoke Council regarding her mother's role as a councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poor article, padded out with unnecessary detail (an entire paragraph on the subject's mum being a local councillor is particularly filler-like). I'm not sure WP:BEFORE was done on this nom, but I have done a little searching and the subject has a few published books, but nothing "significant" per WP:AUTHOR - just quiz books. News coverage is limited to tabloid coverage of her relationship to Toby Tarrant (who is also questionably notable). There seems to have previously been a presumption that anyone who appears on or works in radio is automatically notable, but this is no longer the case, radio presenters or producers even at a national level need to meet GNG and this individual appears non-notable in the specific context of that Wikipedia guideline, has not made a significant contribution to the field and is just another workaday radio producer. Flip Format (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with most of your comments, but to be clear I did conduct a search prior to nomination. I found tabloid celebrity stories such as this. Her quiz book received virtually no coverage, certainly nothing to even consider per WP:NAUTHOR. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tabloids don't contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2024 (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. Nominator states they are happy for the article to be kept. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Yard Bar[edit]

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

Suggest deletion because of lack of notable people or events associated with the bar. (I have checked other well known bars and the ones on Wikipedia tend to have famous clientele or events associated with them). Newhaven lad (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is clearly met. Article is well-referenced to RS. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tons of local, regional, and national coverage in the 31 (!) sources provided by the article creator make this unquestionably notable. LGBTQ Nation, based in San Francisco, covered the impact of changes to Washington State regulatory body policy (WSLCB) directly connected to events at this particular bar; it is noted in several local "top establishment" lists and in-depth reviews, as well as being noted as a best-in-nation by the national publication Esquire; coverage spans from well before the 2021 arson until the present time. When evaluating sources pls note KING-TV#Canadian and out-of-market coverage which states coverage extends well beyond the Puget Sound terrestrial broadcast area with 4 million+ potential viewers; it is carried in Eastern Washington, Canada, Alaska, and even the Bahamas. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for this to be retained. I struggled to find any meaningful links to other Wiki pages. I know that isn't a reason for deletion, but it makes it harder to justify retention. Perhaps those in favour of retention could add some wikilinks. Newhaven lad (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per comment by nominator ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arshi shopping mall fire[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Thanks to the creator for their work but IMO this pretty clearly fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) and also wp:not news North8000 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Events, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill structure fire with no lasting societal effects or analytic coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Peel[edit]

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

When this article was created the new page patroller wrote to the creator "Sources cited are not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, and elected officials at local government level are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL." This is my exact concern now. Coverage is very much local, routine and expected for a local government leader. Peel is lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - local councillor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the basis of a hell of a lot more reliable source coverage about their council work than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician who doesn’t meet criteria for an article. Not notable and few RS media coverage. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillor without evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon[edit]

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

The subject initially met the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN after winning a national parliament seat in the recent election and taking oath as a member of parliament. However, due to a recount the following month, their opponent was declared the winner, resulting in the subject losing their parliamentary seat. which means the subject met WP:POLITICIAN but for brief time. further, the subject fails to meet the basic WP:GNG criteria. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not sure what the policy is for situations like this, but it would seem like they'd still be considered notable. Worth pointing out that there are other people who were elected and never seated but still got a Wikipedia page, such as Luke Letlow. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make sense. I Withdraw this nomination. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siju Adeoye[edit]

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

This article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion by WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL. Served as a local councillor for a single term before switching parties and being defeated. Article appears somewhat promotional: "Adeoye is a voice for the residents in Chatham Central, striving for vibrant community and standing up to austerity" - which is also rather inaccurate, as she subsequently changed parties. Many of the sources are primary, those sources that are secondary are very much routine, local coverage to be expected for councillors. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been edited severally over the years by different editors and this article has been nominated severally for deletion discussion. She being an elected official whether one term or not passes the Notability test. If there have been any issues with NPOV I taught us editors we will rather correct thoses statements but using that as a basis for deletion is not what as Wikipedians we hold ourselves out to do. Owula kpakpo (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately being an elected official in local government does not "pass the notability test" see WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The article has been nominated a few times with WP:CSD and WP:PROD but not for a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The party switch means that she garnered more media mentions than your run-of-the-mill local councilor, but not enough significant coverage to pass the notability bar, IMO. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Pérez (footballer)[edit]

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

It seems his main claim to fame is playing 23 mins in the Mexican second tier many years ago. The best source that I can find is Informador, which is simply a match report that mentions him scoring a goal in a cup match. I can't find anything towards WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTBASIC. Open and shut. Anwegmann (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at least as of now this article is not within WP:GNG.

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayston Preparatory School[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No independent sources. Preparatory schools are very rarely notable and this is no exception. I draftified the early version but the author has decided to move it to mainspace without any indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Korea. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of citation for the document. It is factual info describing school, just as many other schools do the same. Can you give constructive criticism because citation exists? 20240318wiki (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De

rname/Wikipedia Comunity],

I'm writing to request reconsideration of the deletion of the Fayston Preparatory School page. Established in 2010 in Yongin, South Korea, the school's notability is underscored by:

- A Grand Prize in International Education from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea in 2022.

- The AP Computer Science Female Diversity Award in 2023.

- A top ranking in the 2023 Canadian Senior Mathematics Contest, highlighting its academic excellence globally.

These achievements are well-documented in reliable sources, demonstrating the school's significant contribution to education. Additionally, FPS's innovative curriculum, integrating personalized learning with advanced technologies, represents a noteworthy educational approach.

I propose enhancing the article to better meet Wikipedia's standards and am open to community feedback for improvements. The school's recognitions and educational advancements contribute valuable information to Wikipedia and I believe, with adjustments, the page can comply with Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to any guidance or feedback.

Best,

[Your Username] 20240318wiki (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a reasonable amount of independent coverage on the school in the Korean language (google "페이스튼 국제학교"), but kinda difficult dealing with this user it seems. I don't want to validate this editing behavior by voting keep. The existing article isn't very good in the first place; maybe someone else can come along another day and take a shot at writing this article. toobigtokale (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the bulk of the sources are the school's own website and text like "Fayston Preparatory School has been distinguished by several notable achievements that underscore its commitment to educational excellence and innovation" is just blatantly promotional. This is an advertisement masquerading as an article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your personal thoughts. I have to respectfully state that if your comments are true, then many of the articles on wiki about international schools need to be deleted as well. These are based on cited evidence and the article is open to constructive feedbacks, but your claims are what is ungrounded. 20240318wiki (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The school's accreditation codes can be verified, and references to the national assembly award are corroborated across multiple translated articles. These aspects add credibility to Fayston Preparatory School, supporting the case for retaining the article. Wiki1972able (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)— User:Wiki1972able (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete mainly based on primary sources and not enough sourcing to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are the school's own website, which doesn't help towards establishing notability, per WP:INDEPENDENT. One of the other two is a mere mention in a table indicating that a team and two students did well in a maths contest. The remaining one ('Power Korea') isn't independent coverage, being largely what the headmaster said. Not sure of the notability of the Korea Education Industrial Awards. SPA author likely has a conflict of interest, has not responded to the COI warning on their talk page, and may be operating two accounts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the term 'preparatory' can be confusing as in the UK it means a primary school (seldom notable) but in this context it seems to mean college-preparatory school, preparing students for university. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Laguna[edit]

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

Extremely poorly sourced and doesn't show evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. My own searches yielded Info7, Medio Tiempo and Diario de Morelos but these are just squad list mentions and don't show WP:SIGCOV of Laguna. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hammed Kayode Alabi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are bunches of unreliable, paid puffery, interviews, passing mentions, which can not align with WP:BLP. Non-notable entity. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Social science, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first source [10] and the second [11] were quite editorial, but a bit flawless since ita all about a non notable camping. The third source here [12] and the fourth source here [13] were just interviews and doesn't credit to WP:N. The fifth source [14] look like a freelance writing and is generally unreliable (unreliable news web). The sixth here [15] is same as third source–interview. The paragraph, ...became the first young African Board Member at Peace First in 2020. is not a notable achievement and skeptically fails for the seventh source [16] and the eight [17] Obviously a blog. I haven't seen how [18] supports the cited statement when only the line in the source reads: Speaking at the panel session, Kayode Alabi, the founder of Kayode Alabi Leadership and Career Initiative, noted that the organisation had been leveraging technology to enhance learning among children with disabilities and their teachers. Source [19] and [20] seems not noteworthy and were both interviews failing WP:INTERVIEW. Without borders, I am skeptical whether this UN Transforming Education Summit is notable. Well, serving as the delegate doesn't constitute notability though it's note keep by the video in [21]. Seemingly [22] is from an unreliable source Business Ghana while the delegate as claimed wasn't what I saw in [23] which he was placed under "Youth Intervention." Source [24] was same as [11] still an interview that constitutes nothing but just the subject speaking anything about himself. The sixteenth source [25] was well to show the book title : 5 Years: 10 Lessons Life Taught Me and it was also ten tical that it was self published and fails WP:NBOOK. The seventeenth here [26] was a freelance article written on SUS Africa, a generally unreliable source; doesn't target the cited word and was written from a view or self made author bio at the end of a written article/work. Source [27] was an Amazon link which is an unreliable source that leads to the Authors Bio where none of the books presented seems notable. Self published. The next citation [28] is still an interview already repeated in the article and [29] was technically a link from "TED Bauchi" undoubtfully which was a non notable one compared to eg. Ted Euston and more. Western Union Foundation Fellowship is not regarded notable like MacArthur Fellowship, Mandela Washington Fellowship and many more. So, [30] fails while [31] was a well written one seeming sort of paid stuff and the last [32] was a repeated interview. From my analysis, it is also wonderful especially in articles like these when there are many sources even from reliable ones but specifically doesn't contribute to notability or cited words. A critical case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oyebanji Akins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NCREATOR. Sources are paid, promotional and unreliable puff pieces. BEFORE makes no difference. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Bridging cultural divides" and 10 things I should know about him, the typical flowery language from Nigerian sources. I don't se notability when the fluffy language is removed. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Sources are WP:PAID and regular Run of the Mill. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a critic does not inherit notability from reviewing other people's work; they get it for reliable sources about them and their writing. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oga Amos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NCREATOR. Sources, with a partial exception of The Nation, are all paid puff. Sources from BEFORE are also paid puff. See source analysis below;

Currently on the article;

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://thenationonlineng.net/comedian-oga-amos-wins-best-skit-maker-in-ghana/	~ Even though the "win award" is true, this is paid promotional puff	~ Ditto	~ Partial
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/02/25/from-content-creation-to-philanthropy-inspiring-journey-of-oga-amos/	paid promotional puff	Ditto	✘ No
https://leadership.ng/oga-amos-from-anambra-roots-to-lagos-stardom/	paid promotional puff ("Oga Amos’s commitment and talent haven’t gone unnoticed, earning him well-deserved awards that acknowledge his substantial contributions to the dynamic world of online entertainment.", really? Only one non-notable award?)	Ditto	✘ No
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2023/01/27/oga-amos-one-of-nigerias-leading-content-creators/	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/11/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives-of-his-fans/	paid promotional puff	WP:NGRS, paid promotional puff	✘ 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)).

From BEFORE:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://newtelegraphng.com/oga-amos-cheers-content-creators-for-incredible-creativity/	~	~ Even though WP:NGRS, this is still dependent on the subject	This is not about him directly	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives/	paid promotional puff	Ditto		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/11/05/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives-of-his-fans	Ditto	Ditto and WP:NGRS		✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-fans-lives/	Ditto	Ditto		✘ 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)).

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the charts show, lots of wording for not much substance for notability. It's all either long fluff pieces or just what reads as SEO spam. I can't find anything that isn't a puff piece either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordvins (term for Jews)[edit]

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

The article does not seem to be based on WP:Reliable sources. I checked the English sources and one Russian source in this article, and none of them supports the claims that Mordvins or other ethnic groups mentioned here would have been Jewish (hence the many ((failed verification)) tags in the article). I did not check all the Russian sources, but I suspect the same is true for them. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Judaism, and Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of these, however, were indeed Jews, like Erzyas, likely Meshchers (Mazhars/Mishars), Mokshas, Muromians, Burtas, etc" I'm lost for words. Speedy Delete, and all edits made by the author of this article probably should be checked thoroughly. Finstergeist (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article is apparently an admin over at Moksha Wikipedia 😐. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it too, and I can only wonder about the quality of articles on there. At least on Russian Wikipedia, their contributions look nowhere near as bad (probably because such extreme claims would be challenged very quickly on there). Finstergeist (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As above, lost for words. Would it be wrong for me to tag this article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax? Also I think someone needs to bring the account creator to administrator attention, since their entire edit history seems to consist of this kind of behavior. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Max Vasmer etymological dictionary has a mention: "Mordva" - a derogatory term towards Jews and children - is widespread up to Smolensk, where the word "mordvin" is also used to mean "troublemaker". I'm hesitant to propose a merge due to the article's quality, but it doesn't seem to be a hoax in its entirety, and a one-sentence mention at Mordva (slur) or Mordvins is possibly warranted. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulT2022 thanks for noting this—important context for sure. At the related AfD for Mordva (slur), @Finstergeist claims that the pejorative term for Jews is merely homophonic...but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Thoughts on this?

Also worth noting, as pointed out at the talk page for the article under discussion here, that the lead seems to be copied from Turk (term for Muslims) with keywords swapped:

The ethnonym Turks (Greek: Τούρκοι/Tourkoi, Serbo-Croatian: Turci/Турци, Albanian: turk) has been commonly used by the non-Muslim Balkan peoples to denote all Muslim settlers in the region, regardless of their ethno-linguistic background. The majority of these, however, were indeed ethnic Turks.
Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vasmer doesn't seem to imply homophony, whereas Nosovich (the quote from the lead image in Mordva (slur)) does.

I don't have an opinion whether either viewpoint is WP:FRINGE. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dictionary entry is actually mentioned in the Russian Wikipedia article on Mordvins, but the chronological and geographical distance is still too big to support the extraordinary claim that this meaning has anything to do with medieval Mordvins (and to my knowledge, no reliable source makes such claims either). Finstergeist (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think this article is of such poor quality that merging it would be more work than just starting with a clean slate FortunateSons (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:TNT. We need verification and a real article, not this huge mess. Everyone knows in 2024 that we are not a fee web host. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Agree with fortunate sons, we should just scrap this.Tennisist123 (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (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) NotAGenious (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Jacoby[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur that fails WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Sources are passing mentions. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps a partial merge into the NIF article would be an appropriate remedy?

FortunateSons (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This [33] (you need ProQuest access) from The Forward in 2000 should be good for a WP:GNG-point. These [34][35] are better than passing mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [36][37][38] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed a number of references which were passing mentions and have added other references which demonstrate the subject's notability. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Misha Wolf. The sourcing is now sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (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 Starfleet#Starfleet Academy. ✗plicit 14:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Academy[edit]

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

This topic may become notable in a year or two when the new series premiers, but right now all we have is a poorly referenced plot summary that fails WP:GNG. BEFORE shows nothing but plot summaries and an occasional reference to video games, upcoming TV show or some comic books. For now this probably should be a disambig page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify as per nom. While the article as it stands is an extremely crufty in-universe-style discussion of a fictional locale, the extensive hatnoting does lend it to being turned into a disambiguation page. Notably, while the current hatnote simply links to List of Star Trek novels, I can see that being fleshed out into an entire Novels and Novel Series section in a Starfleet Academy dab page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without looking at the page, Starfleet Academy is a fictional setting in an exceptionally well documented fictional universe. It appears in, or is referenced by, multiple TV series, movies, novels, and games of various stripes. While the Star Trek universe doesn't have the ridiculous amount of academic coverage the Buffyverse has, I'm relatively certain that a thorough search will identify enough to build a single, comprehensive article something like Iron Man, with possible other WP:SS children to cover its appearance in particular media when such appearances are themselves worthy of an article. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now more comments: First, the current state of an article can't "fail the GNG" per NEXIST. A topic either fails or passes GNG, and the topic clearly passes. Unfortunately, DUE means that to have an article on Starfleet Academy as a supertopic, most of it is going to have to be about the upcoming TV show(s), because that's what RSes are overwhelmingly covering. Not particularly happy about that, because I think there's a lot more to it than that. Our coverage of Kobayashi Maru, for instance, has RS references to officer training at Starfleet Academy, some of which could be integrated into an ideal article on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the first part of your argument to seems to counter an argument never made. They never claimed "the current state" isn't notable, or anything violating NEXIST. They simply stated that the subject, as is right now, is not notable, but that there's hope for future coverage to develop because the franchise is active. Big difference. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Undecided so far, but with an endless number of Star Trek article and it easily being a plausible search term, I would think merging and/or redirecting would be the right way to go here over outright deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Academy. Minor fancruft, though I would not doubt Starfleet itself is a notable subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I don't edit the content area and didn't realize that article existed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Academy. Too little content/coverage to sustain a standalone article, but there is a plausible search term and place to work on improving it too. Sergecross73 msg me
Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Academy. This isn't treated as a separate topic by sources. I would support a WP:HATNOTE for any additional disambiguation. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne E. Lazarus[edit]

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

I was going to do a Good Article review of this article, but I'm afraid that the subject may not be notable. Beyond primary sources and local news, there isn't much more in-depth coverage of her. And local news reporting is sparse, such as when she won the Philadelphia Bar Association's Sandra Day O’Connor Award or when she was elected to serve as the President Judge. I think she is not notable enough for a separate article from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania article, so a redirect to Superior Court of Pennsylvania would suffice for now until there is enough coverage to recreate the article. Spinixster (chat!) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, New York, and Pennsylvania. Spinixster (chat!) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: First of all, she is on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. She is NOT on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The majority of judges on the Superior Court have their own articles, and Anne is the actual President Judge. So, out of all of the people that already have articles for the Superior Court (and also, literally look at any other Superior or Supreme Court article for states, the majority of the articles about state judges are WAY less sourced than this one). Please read over WP:JUDGE. DocZach (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you have strong emotions over this, and yes, I did made a typo that I have fixed. However, part of what you're saying falls under WP:WHATABOUT. Also, if the article does end up as a keep, I do not think it would be a Good article unless more sourcing is found, since it would fail WP:GACR 2 and 3, as some of the sources that this article heavily relies on are primary and there is not much info on what she did in her roles. Spinixster (chat!) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I do not have strong feelings about this. I have never met this person, and am not very fond of her decisions. Yet, since I am interested in the Superior Court, I have created a fair article for its President. So stop assuming things out of nowhere.

Second of all, you can remove my good article nomination. I want it retracted, but I don't know how to do that. DocZach (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can just remove the Good article banner on the talk page. Spinixster (chat!) 01:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the President of the court passes WP:JUDGE and was reliable cited by [39] and [40] from Altoona Mirror & Pennsylvania Bar Association respectively. The election results was cited well here by Ballotpedia. Furthermore, the subject was a recipient of two awards covered here and here which are local sources in Pennsylvania. There was also a citation here from The Philadelphia Inquirer. I literally can find more than three sources per WP:THREE satisfying reliable sources and citation. I will say the subject have appeared in local sources mainly perhaps based in Pennsylvania. May not attain GA status per finding multiple sources but just three as stub is enough. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. Also passes my tests for lawyers easily. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan van Putten[edit]

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

Only notability is his 'Grote Prijs van Zuid-Holland' award, however he won the people's choice award, and not first, second, or third place which is required as per WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Netherlands, and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt if winning the 'Grote Prijs van Zuid-Holland' would automatically make someone notable. The subject did not win the prize. An opening act for someone with an article does not fly per NOTINHERETED. Furthermore, 'such as' in these autobiographic entries is never a random name but the most famous name in a list. This immediately makes an article PEACOCK. Better use 'including' as no randomness is implied! gidonb (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2024 (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!} 07:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armel Oroko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I found passing mentions but nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Central African Republic. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found Camfoot, but it's only a trivial mention of Oroko. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic engineering[edit]

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

This article is almost the only use of the term. It is certainly not general use. Nuclear engineering is very different, and what this article claims to cover is part of chemistry/physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This entry has been updated since the discussion started. 2603:3024:185A:3100:6478:8AEF:C308:DBFA (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly whoever wrote this article had no idea what they were talking about. Nuclear engineering has nothing to do whatsoever with arranging atoms in materials. The latter is referred to as nanoscience or nanoengineering at present, even though it's at sub-nanometer scales. Reference 1 does not mention "atomic engineering" at all; reference 2 does, but it's from 1946 and was defining a neologism that never caught on; the other references are all talking about different things. I can't find anything referring to "atomic engineering" as a discipline, let alone a discipline with as contradictory a definition as this article offers. I would suggest a merge to nanotechnology but there's not much to merge; the article is mostly just conflicting definitions of the term and some surrounding context. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear engineering has to do with controlling and using nuclear degrees of freedom and radiation. There should be nothing inherent about lengthscale that limits nuclear engineering, nor should the focus be to just get electrical power. For example, controlling nuclear spin in Nitrogen-Vacancy center defect in diamond belong to nuclear engineering. Prof. Paola Cappellaro at Department of Nuclear Engineering at MIT works on controlling such atomic point defects to be quantum sensors. MindHand (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of atomic engineering is akin to the "atom forge":

https://tickle.utk.edu/kalinins-atomic-scale-building-research-featured-in-physics-today/

https://www.ornl.gov/content/fire-atom-forge

https://www.nature.com/articles/539485a

and is getting general use (we should include these references on the page). Nuclear engineering arises out of physics/chemistry, but with an engineering focus. MindHand (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic engineering starts to be used by many other researchers (https://www.nature.com/articles/s44160-024-00501-z) to describe the atomic structure modification of crystal. The relationship between atomic engineering and nuclear engineering has been modified in the revision. 2603:3024:185A:3100:6478:8AEF:C308:DBFA (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The information of DOE program on Atomic Precise Manufacture in 2019 is added. Ldm1954 said the STEM hole drilling and STM litho is obsolete, which absolutely has no foundation. The hole drilling attempted by Colin Humphreys has a resolution of 10 nm at best, which cannot be considered as atomic precision (0.1 nm precision required). 2603:3024:185A:3100:6478:8AEF:C308:DBFA (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not misquote me, I stated "abandoned".

It should be mentioned that the 2019 program was central to a previously deleted page atomically precise manufacturing. Much of the information recently added is very, very similar to what was deleted almost a year ago. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: "Abandoned" is not correct either. There is a constant flow of interest in working on atom control with these techniques. Apart from the electron-microscopy-based work listed in the main context, there is also interests in STM lithography (like what has been demonstrated here, and the technique commercialized by Zyvex and what they recently demonstrated). This is not a speculation, but has been demonstrated scientifically with notable references. The main challenge is how to "scale-up" the technique for application purpose, but those progress should be added as atomic engineering progress. My opinion to ~~Keep~~ this article stays the same. 2603:3024:185A:3100:FDDE:9F22:503:C048 (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting from the deleted page. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2603:3024, you can only cast one vote, even when your IP address changes slightly. Rigt now, you've voted Keep four times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*A slight modification of my original nomination: best is Draftify, second is WP:TNT for a new draft and third is Delete. To explain. A feature of AfD is that articles can be (sometimes are) improved after being nominated. This has happened here, but I do not think it is the same article; it is enough different to be a new synthesis. It would not be right for it to preserve the old status.

And, sadly, it is currently full of science errors. Hole drilling in STEM was first looked at by Colin Humphreys decades ago, then pretty much abandoned. STM lithography is also old, was a DARPA project and pretty much abandoned. Way more careful research is needed, in my professional opinion this revised version is very weak. And, yes, electron microscopy is part of my core competency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)

Returning to my original nomination of Delete. I just re-read the page, and it is now on a completely different topic to the original version that I nominated, for which see here. Following the AfD the page has been completely rewritten by a (it appears) different editor. The current page is now very, very similar to a page Atomically precise manufacturing which was deleted in June 2023 following this discussion with WP:TOOSOON, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR being some of the issues raised by various editors. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (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!} 07:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linux (detergent)[edit]

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

The only claim to notability appears to be the use of the name "Linux" to, it appears deliberately, be the same as the OS. This does not appear to be a valid notability justification. I think whether this type of page belongs should be discussed. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the paragraph headed Controversy (by far the longest part of the article) the article itself provides the reasons why it should never have been accepted in the first place. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than being a running gag in Linux forums since the early 2000s (it's not even controversial, everybody just thinks it's funny), there's nothing noteworthy about this product. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay I understand you, but please don't delete it, because it is an article that has several translations, give me time to improve it Luisattack1000 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2024 (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!} 07:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trajectoid[edit]

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

As the article states, to date there is no application for this code and the notability of the article is based on conjectured future uses. A classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON describes it very well. Athel cb (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2024 (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 WCCO-TV. I just need a consensus for one target article and the nominator had suggested a different one than WCCO-TV. Consensus is for a Redirect but if there is content here that you want to Merge than do so as long as you provide attribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K33DB-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Merge with KMSP-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Minnesota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WCCO-TV Take what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K34HO-D, rinse and repeat, check RabbitEars, and you'll find this station has changed its input (our article is currently wrong) and thus the appropriate redirect target. This is not a stack-lator where subchannels are composited from multiple sources, so there is a place for it to go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WCCO-TV: it is the current primary station (and K33DB-D is mentioned there), translators don't exactly have independent notability (even before the larger weeding out of never-notable LPTVs), and the only semblance of "separate local programming" is the technicality of the very nature of Local on the 8s (it carried The Weather Channel before switching to KMSP-TV and still later WCCO). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there are two different Redirect target articles proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, we need to stick with one Redirect target article instead of the two proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The information in the article is out of date. WCCO-TV is unquestionably the correct redirect target. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WCCO-TV: If you check RabbitEars, and type the call sign of the station, K33DB-D, its clear it's output of programming is WCCO, NOT KMSP-TV. I say this because, just like what WcQuidditch said, the article for WCCO on its Translators subsection includes K33DB. Also, the article (the Alexandra, Minnesota article not WCCO) is outdated by now.

Also, just to also point out is that it would make sense for KMSP, if it wasn't clear that in 2017, WCCO shuted down KCCO, its translator in Alexandria in the 2016 United States wireless spectrum auction. Also, this is not an Innovate/HC2 type of station, so it's best to redirect to WCCO and not KMSP. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 20:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Yk Mule[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. BEFORE doesn’t help. The Punch piece is a bit misleading in terms of verifying he really won the “Best DJ” award from The Beatz Award. The piece simply does not verify that claim. Even if it does, still non-notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable DJ. Does not meet WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLV Group Corporation[edit]

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

All of the sources currently on the page are either primary sources, unreliable, or not in-depth. In a WP:BEFORE [41] was the only independent mention that I could be sure was the same company, and only in passing. [42] Is a press release. All of the reliable sources that I could find to support meeting WP:NCORP were for other companies with similar names. Shaws username . talk . 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwo Ogunwumi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are either passing mentions, dependent, or primary. BEFORE makes no difference. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, Social science, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 23 March 2024 (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 Sonshine Media Network International. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinas (newspaper)[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Could be redirected to Sonshine Media Network International at best. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonshine Media Network International now that I've added a cited mention in that article. Seconding nom's claim that there are no reliable cites found in GSearch. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent company Sonshine Media Network International. Fails WP:NCORP per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2024 (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 but this article seriously needs much cleanup if it is to remain in the long run. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Blade[edit]

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

I did try cleaning up all of those sources that have no commentary, unreliable, and that talks only about listicles/rankings/hotties ranks, but there's more. After all of that, I felt like Sonya now has zero WP:Sigcov. The only valuable sources were the 2 pdf/journal at the end that only talks about her custome at MK9. That's it. Per WP:BEFORE, most of the sources appears to be only like this [43] [44] [45] [46][47] that provides almost nothing about the character and are usually not a Sigcov. The rest sources were just her announcement to the game and all of these just usually say "WoW Sonya Is Back In New Trailer, so coOl". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Her current reception is untenable. This was the only viable SIGCOV I could find, which falls short of GNG standards. Her article has definitely been WP:REFBOMBed to give the appearance of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also found this source: [48] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just from a quick search, I've been able to find [49], [50], and [51]. While three is not a large amount of sigcov, the fact that they were easily found suggests to me that this is probably not the extent of what is available. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet, but [52] [53] both discuss the character in the film to a significant extent. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources Cukie Gherkin has provided in here, plus the aforementioned sources I've added to the article at the beginning of this month after you previously tagged the article for notability. WP:GNG, WP:THREE and WP:NVGC are more than satisfied here. Besides, I don't get why you're doubting the notability of Sonya Blade, of all characters, arguably the Chun-Li of Mortal Kombat. MoonJet (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added the Mary Sue and Vice sources to the article. MoonJet (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the Vice source, it seems it's about Ronda Rousey, not Sonya Blade the character. In other words, it is critical of Rousey's performance as a voice actor and the game developers' casting decisions, with only a few comments on Blade's significance that don't add up to SIGCOV overall. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder, WP:GNG specifically states that an article need not be about the subject in order to be usable to show notability. The fact that it was Sonya in particular was one part of why she is so against Rousey portraying her, and she goes on to explain why. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a common misconception that sources need to be solely or primarily about about the subject to show notability, despite GNG stating otherwise. Besides, the Vice source really is about both Ronda Rousey and Sonya. I know WP:THREE is pushed sometimes. Well, the three best sources, IMO, are The Mary Sue, GamesRadar and the PDF document The female characters in the game Mortal Kombat: An aesthetic analysis from the stereotyped image of a woman. So, even if you feel Vice doesn't contribute to significant coverage, there's still those other sources. MoonJet (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criticism of WP:REFBOMBing is valid here. I want to give this the benefit of the doubt that this might still have WP:SIGCOV. But it's hard to assess given the amount of tangential information added to this article to pad it. A clean-up would be a good start, and I think there's a consensus for that. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to weigh in on the sources linked here? Honestly, a lot of fighting game character articles are refbombed, which is going to be a process of cleaning up across the board. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs clean-up too, especially the "appearances" section, which definitely is in need of some trimming. This seems to be a left over from the older Wikipedia days, where certain users (myself included, I have to admit) over-cited character articles. That said, I'm in favor of keeping the article per my above arguments, but tagging it for clean-up. MoonJet (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I put more of the blame on Niemti and his tendency to overblow everything he can than you. It's also why I've been hesitant to AfD Mortal Kombat subjects because until the junk it cleaved out it's hard to know just how much of it is actually useful and give a fair image if a AfD is necessary or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up at least temporarily, so the article can be improved. I'm basing this on the significant coverage in "Sonya Blade finally feels like a real character in Mortal Kombat X". This provides the kind of in-depth analysis needed for a separate article, even if we would still need more sources like this. Some of the other sources are more borderline, but I'm convinced there are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, lost between the padding. AFD isn't clean-up, but hopefully editors can keep improving the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bender Machine Works[edit]

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

Effectively unreferenced... major mess. The article's lead suggests it is about a company (which does not seem notable, no hits on GScholar). Much of the body seems to discuss some of their product or products ("Bender Washer/Releaser"). Then there is a big EL farm to their patents. At best I can say this is some historical WP:OR and sadly I doubt anything here can be rescued (GScholar returns zero hits for this "Bender Washer/Releaser"). At worst, this looks like a possible WP:HOAX, although AFD I lean towards ye old OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I agree that it should be deleted. --FPTI (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lengthy article, what in particular about Wikipedia's criteria for notability does it not meet? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Errr, are you serious? From GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Now, are you seeing, well... sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this is a hoax... looking through the page history I think it's just a few different inventions/ patents from this one guy, and the title of the article is misleading. I did a newspaper archive search but the few results are in passing and don't seem to all be about the same subject. Unfortunately I think this is either too obscure to pass GNG, or the actually notable parts of the article are sufficiently obscured by other elements of it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (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!} 23:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refrigerate after opening[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay/WP:OR, which is extra problematic as this topic is related to medical areas, where we want above-average quality. No footnotes, two not very reliably looking external links, tagged as needing more sources since 2012. If nobody can improve this, WP:ATD-R target to consider could be Food preservation perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Biology, and Medicine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect This is a term used on food labels like "Made with real fruit". Im struggling to see this as an encyclopedic subject. Ben Azura (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I think this is a likely enough search term to be worth redirecting. After reviewing associate articles I think Shelf life is probably the best target since it is mostly relevant content and could easily be expanded by a couple of sentences to mention this phrase explicitly. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404 Sama author created now-deleted shake well :) Any ideas where to redirect that one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. On the surface Food packaging seems the most relevant but doesn't really cover the relevant issues. A look at Outline of food preparation shows that we don't have any articles on sifting or mixing as they apply to cooking. At least that I can see. Somewhat surprising, but, as the saying goes, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a cookbook. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different target articles suggested to Redirect this article to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unreferenced personal essay that doesn't say anything that doesn't relate to food preservation in general. It's not worth redirecting as it's just an ordinary use of the English language. We might just as well redirect Permits entry of light to Window. Elemimele (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, this sorry and unsurprisingly uncited essay has no place on Wikipedia; the topic of food preservation is sufficiently covered already, and this wouldn't be a sensible redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced and lacking any evidence of notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of IDE choices for Haxe programmers[edit]

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

This doesn’t meet WP: N. I can’t find any reliable secondary sources that actually compare different IDEs for programming in Haxe. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NLIST, the grouping itself has to be shown to be notable by reliable sources, which it does not appear to have been. popodameron ⁠talk 04:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NLIST I'm afraid. Something like C++ might, but this is an obscure language and this comparison is not made in any reliable sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2024 (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!} 02:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long Valley, Lassen County, California[edit]

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

Another leftover from a failed group nom, this was synthesized from Durham and a couple of other sources, neither of which testifies to a town by this name. I was able to "verify" the post office against Jim Forte's site, which is technically self-published but which we have never run into cause for doubting; he gives its dates as 1869-1912, for what that's worth. There's no GNIS entry for it and I haven't seen any sign of it on topos, and I cannot work out where the coordinates came from. The part about the "Beckwourth Trail" refers to the valley, not a town, so it's irrelevant. Someone who has a copy of Durham may be able to shed more light on this but the most reasonable guess is that there was a post office set up at the saw mill. That's not the same as a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was never a settlement called "Long Valley" it was a valley, and there were settlements in it. They were not called "Long Valley". The post office was and it served settlements there. In the newspaper there are mentions of people from Long Valley, but there is no reason why people cannot say they are from the Valley they live in. People used an address of Long Valley, because that was there post office. Here is and example: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-lassen-advocate-just-a-valley/143501762/ There are also numerous examples in these newspapers of post offices not being named for the town or valley the serve.James.folsom (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton, California.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment re previous nomination In spite of the barrage of procedural keeps, all of the articles were eventually deleted except for this one and two others, neither of which has been subjected to an individual AfD. Mangoe (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Knapper[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Article is sourced to trivial puff pieces, blogs, and non independent sources. The actor doesn't appear to have been in any significant productions. Just small regional theatre companies. No film or television work. 4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial sources about appearances in the film, nothing independent as per nom. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 04:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have searched, can only find a small amount of local coverage, agree he does not meet WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV or GNG met. Couldn't find any sources for establishing notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSPJ-LP[edit]

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

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the nominator omitted any nomination reason, it's not hard to figure out it's probably the usual GNG failure for lack of significant coverage. I don't think the non-FCC sourcing for this stations goes far beyond this listing of the station's 2005 license-only sale, which wouldn't exactly fall under SIGCOV. Another remnant of the looser "standards" of 2007, and to an extent pre-2021 in general. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly as the actual programming the station aired can't be ascertained as TBN sold it to someone else and they never really got it truly on the air. Nate • (chatter) 01:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability and the existing links are dead. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economic repression in the Soviet Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion on June 28, 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. Nevertheless, the article has been recreated. There is barely any indication of any improvement in the article from the previous version—while this version is very slightly longer and does use a handful of sources (the previous version used none), it does not substantively address or remedy the issues raised in the previous AfD (and is in fact inherently unable to do so).

The main criticisms from the previous discussion were:

The article is pretending to be a wide-ranging article, which it is not (as per @Peterkingiron). As before, the article purports to be about "economic repression" in general but its grand total of 7 sentences (that's it; that's the whole article) are entirely about Dekulakization and the Holodomor, already covered at length by existing articles.
This is not a term used in the literature either of mainstream economic history or of Marxism... A generalized treatment under the topic head we have here, at least at this point, would be overreach verging on Original Research. (as per @Carrite). This was was true then, is still true now. The article was tagged for notability concerns, but the template was removed from the article by the main author with the note multiple WP:RS have written about the topic; see the respective articles in the sb for examples. In fact, none of the sources cited in the article (reliable or otherwise) use the term economic repression or even anything akin to it. The few sources the articles uses are about dekulakization and the Holodomor—and we have articles for that.
The first sentence fails to properly define the subject (as per @Arbraxan). Still the case, although the content of the first sentence has changed, the new version still fails to define the subject. Instead, it simply lists two apparent examples of "economic repression": forced collectivization or dekulakization of industry (again, we have articles for this), followed by the apparent motives for such policies: with the intention of artificially stimulating economic growth or confiscating property from individuals for the distribution of wealth. No citations are given whatsoever for why such policies should come under the header of "economic repression", and the motives overwhelmingly appear to be the author's own personal speculation. The reader is left clueless as to what economic repression actually is (as opposed to what some purported examples of it are, or why it happened, in the views of the author).

To summarize this article is at best a needless (and pitifully short) WP:CFORK, and at worst, insofar as it groups them under a title that isn't actually used in the scholarly literature, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Russia. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a loose grouping of events under a title which does not appear to be used in RIS to describe this grouping, or anything close to it. The nomination statement sets the issues out very well. Mccapra (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear this is original research and synthesis, with no actual content not already covered in other articles. The sources used are about other topics covered elsewhere, such as the Holodomor, not specifically about "economic repression". AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (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. Snowing. (non-admin closure) ^Queenof_Hearts 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewing (facial restructuring technique)[edit]

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

This article does not meet the standards of relevancy and it seems that it only has two sources that are not covering the recent wave of the popularity of mewing as a meme. There is also only one source has any type of reputability. The article is clearly not on a notable subject. Polargrizbear (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Popular culture. Polargrizbear (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per recent coverage (or, if all else fails, merge into ~~List of Generation Z slang~~ or John Mew:

"What is the ‘mewing’ trend? Why teachers are hitting back at classroom craze" from The Independent
"What to know about mewing: Netflix doc 'Open Wide' rekindles interest in beauty trend (archived version without paywall) from USA Today, given this is covering a documentary on the subject
"A24 Sets Documentary ‘Open Wide,’ About Controversial Orthodontists Behind Viral TikTok Trend, at Netflix" from Variety, although given this is a WP:FRINGE topic, not sure how relevant this would be

I think the article sits in a weird spot between fringe medical theory-thing & popular culture. Orthodontic medical sources would be appreciated and likely necessary for the article, though I'm not sure where to find those. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my quick Google and Google Scholar search (I can't access the Wikipedia Library on my phone):

https://www.esquire.com/uk/style/grooming/a46200555/tik-tok-defined-jawline/ - Esquire article, found on semi-related article Looksmaxxing
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/3280/ - a senior thesis, citations inside may be of use (I'm generally unfamiliar with WP:MEDRS and rarely touch the subject on principle)
https://www.joms.org/article/S0278-2391(19)30349-0/fulltext - appears to be written by dentists, will verify publication when on desktop and available
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0043-1767647?device=mobile&innerWidth=980&offsetWidth=980 - mewing as a potential cause for salivary gland cysts

Just speculation - I wouldn't be shocked in the next few years some more scholarly research comes out about the negative effects of mewing. I stand by my earlier statement that mewing sits at a strange crossroads of fringe medical topic and fad. I hope more scholarly research comes out, since this article is probably prone to fringe POV hijacking. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I give up on correcting that. If some more scholarly research comes out. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "mewing" is mentioned in this medical journal and The New York Times back in 2020. Obviously a fringe hypothesis, however. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Absolutely keep, clearly passes strong WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I am the creator of this article. It might be worthy to note that this was originally a redirect to John Mew. Per the above keep votes. There is an entire documentary about mewing coming out (cool to know), so I believe this is WP:SUSTAINED. Another thing to note is that a redirect/merge back to John Mew would certainly not make sense as this topic is known far beyond the person who coined it, and I don't think a redirect to List of Generation Z slang would make much sense as it's not exactly a slang dictionary word. TLA^tlak 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sits at a strange intersection. I'm not sure which would be more appropriate, but it'd likely be Mew. Striking out my prior comment about adding it to the list of Generation Z slang. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that pageviews should not contribute to notability, however, it's clear that wherever this Mewing title leads to gets the views. I personally think it would be irresponsible for us to redirect it to a lesser known person with limited information about the technique. Gen Z slang is so complicated and strange 😞 TLA^tlak 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We may lament its notability but it is notable albeit in a fairly minor way. It joins the long list of notable pseudo medical fads that encrust the sordid history of quackery. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewing is not “generation Z slang”, though. It’s a facial technique, and it should be treated as so. I feel there is too much information about it to be placed in a sub-article. GP22248 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Mach61 19:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This technique is probably nonsense, but unfortunately it is still present in numerous sources. However, it should be made clear that it is not scientific but an internet phenomenon. Killarnee (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is attested in recent sources; per Schrödinger's jellyfish (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 15:51, 26 March 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 03:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Sophia van Schönborn[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable purported Dutch royal. Nonsourced stub containing bizarre comment such as "she had a 24th child (twins) and also a couple of miscarriages." Nirva20 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no way to verify if this person even ever existed. What's to say this isn't all made up? AusLondonder (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What’s to say it isn’t all made up is putting the subject’s name into google search and finding it in dozens and dozens of reliable independent sources stretching over a century. Whether she’s notable or not is harder to say. Most of the refs about her are passing mentions in almanacs or handbooks of the nobility. The few I could find that offered greater depth are 1 2 and 3. Whether that’s enough for a stand alone article I’m not sure, and there may be other sources I didn’t manage to turn up. Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is in fact made up, I'm saying without sources present there is no way of readers being able to verify information or know whether an article is made up. Just looked at the sources, the second one appears to be the website of a restaurant. Other two could potentially be useful. AusLondonder (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

restaurant in the castle she owned, yes. Mccapra (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her "Marquess" spouse is equally non-notable. Thus no potential redirect. Nirva20 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no context is provided. The article was created by someone who appears to have gotten carried away with creating articles on subjects in their region. Better than deleting it, would be redirecting to Schönborn family, HOWEVER, Anna Sophia is NOT listed there. Nor is her husband. Until listed, the article should be viewed as an improper SPINOUT of the family article, and regardless of notability be deleted. Information should not live in a vacuum! gidonb (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not a single source. If someone wants to restart the page with sources they are probably better off starting from scratch anywayTennisist123 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World government in fiction[edit]

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

This is the usual fancrufty mess (similar to Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Political ideas in science fiction). Let's see. Zero references for the prose part, only few footnotes for the very long list of examples (99% of which is unreferenced). While the topic might be notable (might; my BEFORE failed to locate anything good), the current execution fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA, as well as WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN. This was split from World government in 2005, then completely removed from that article, and this one hasn't improved in ~20 years - it is pure WP:NOTTVTROPES. At best, we could WP:ATD-R it back to World government, ~~except there is no section to target~~(update: there is now, but it is unreferenced - I split it from the lead), and not a single ref discussing this concept. Maybe United Nations in popular culture, which is somewhat better, could be a plausible redirect instead? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Politics, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another situation where an example farm that should've been deleted, was swept under the rug instead. An unnecessary split with no redeeming value. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO and WP:OR. The idea of ruling the world is probably as old as fiction itself. The examples are unverifiable in practice, with most of them unverified at present. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close to WP:OR. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 02:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DesLauriers[edit]

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

I Would like to nominate this for deletion because i can't find any reliable sourcing that is significant coverage, other than mentioned when his wife became the first woman to climb Mount Everest. 🍪 CookieMonster 01:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this coverage in ESPN, but it is primarily about his wife, and I cannot find any other significant, reliable and independent coverage. Another option might be Redirect to Kit DesLauriers. Tacyarg (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT. We need citations, not wild claims. You don't inherit notability from your wife. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D.J Dominic ( D.D.P)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and possible autobiography by a WP:SPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Liberia. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Flex Liberia. The article has been deleted at least 5 times in the past month. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised, but I was unaware or I would have deleted it myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2024 (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 looks like the article has been vastly improved through editors (many thanks) and there is a consensus to Keep it. Thanks to User:Wcquidditch for assisting an editor with the AFD process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian studies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ballantyne82 (talk · contribs) has been trying to nominate this article for deletion, with the rationale This topic of Macedonian Studies requires a much broader description than the one sentence provided in this article. (They have offered a nearly identical rationale on the nomination talk page.) Their efforts have been largely malformed (including, but not limited to, using a template intended to be used on articles as part of proposed deletion on this nomination page rather than ((afd2)) and attempting to transclude and replace the 2006 AfD for a previous article at this title); I am fixing this. (From their previous edits to the article — including a declined speedy deletion nomination — and its talk page, they have had issues with this article for some time.) My involvement is purely procedural and I offer no real opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing this. Ballantyne82 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason to have this article, as it's just a brief definition of the term "Macedonian studies" and hasn't been expanded beyond that since its creation in 2010. That information could be, at most, rolled into the article on the Macedonian language. There's a list of Macedonian linguists, but if there's enough of those, it's better to list them in an article called List of Macedonian linguists, or create a category for that. Cortador (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was planning on nominating it for AfD too. In the absence of reliable sources which discuss the subject matter, this is the best course of action. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep, due to the addition of new sources. The lack of in-depth coverage about the subject in English-language sources is to be noted though, which is what influenced my precious vote. Despite this, I think that the article can be still improved. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article most certainly requires (and deserve) additional work, yet the topic itself seems almost obviously notable to me. I believe we should be able to identify further reliable and relevant online and print sources in English, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, German and other languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There needs to be some kind of disambiguation between 'Ancient Macedonian studies' and Macedonian studies as a subfield of Slavic studies. A bibliography for the former can be found at https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0140 and can be accessed via the Wikipedia library here. Some more discussion can be found at https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004209237_003 (link for access via WP library). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There also needs to be disambiguation of Macedonian studies of other peoples of Macedonia generally, if you are only focussed on Slavic studies in this article. Ballantyne82 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am involved quite a lot into ethnic minorities topic I would say most certainly and in principle yes, however, in practice we can legitimately request it if we expect the same in case of Croatian, contemporary Greek, German, Turkish or any other area study.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Comment after Keep vote. In an effort to propose WP:HEY I introduced a couple of references and some additional content about the discipline. I don't know too much about the topic, but I hope my contribution will help in preservation of the article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your contributions. I do still have some concerns:

- Where's the source that the field covers literature, history, and culture too? I think "comprehensive" might be redundant.

- Which other post-Yugoslav country is it taught in apart from Croatia?

- The term "Macedonian specialist" is not found in English-language sources. The term "Macedonist" appears to be more commonly used in a nationalist context, at least in English-language sources. Although, the source Lexicon Grammaticorum: A Bio-Bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics does explicitly mention Božidar Vidoeski and Blaže Koneski as "Macedonists" and uses it in a linguistic context.

It'd be also great if you could provide some quotes here in English so that other editors who aren't knowledgeable with those languages can verify the statements. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are perfectly legitimate questions and if any statement may be controversial for some reason we should look for further references. As for your initial comment, it seems like quite banal and unexceptional statement to me, but if for any reason it is still questioned, we may look further. As for the other post-Yugoslav states, they most certainly include at least Serbia and Slovenia (easily referenced). The last one, I have no idea about this term, it can be removed if you feel the need to do it. Importantly, all of this is about the quality of the article if I am right? This can be addressed on the talk page with appropriate grading of the quality. The article doesn't have to be A class to be preserved. If I can help any further I will to the extent my time permits. And, just not to miss the last part, notable sources may be in any language - if there are some additional in English great, but any language will work. Greetings.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added some citations for places where Macedonian is taught at the university level (Albania, Canada, Croatia, Poland, USA). Maybe it's just me, but this article doesn't seem to be lacking when compared to, say, Albanology or Serbian studies. I'll go with Keep here. --Local hero ^talk 16:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jingiby (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (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.