Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 5 January 2024 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhenald Kasali (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 28 December 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Neom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxagon

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

This is the fourth of four articles about parts of NEOM, a grandiose Saudi commercial, industrial, and recreational development:

This article is about a floating industrial complex on the Saudi shore of the Red Sea. However, the article does not speak for itself and does not provide any indication that the complex, which is still under construction is notable, because they do not describe what third parties have said. A review of the references was needed. None of the references are independent; they are in the nature of press releases:

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency Announcement of plans for Oxagon No Yes Yes No
2 www.neom.com Information brochure about Oxagon No Yes Yes No
3 www.arabnews.com Press release from prince about Oxagon No Yes Yes No
4 saudigazette.com.sa Press release about a subsidiary company located at Oxagon No Not significantly about Oxagon because about Tonomus Yes No
5 www.gccbusinessnews.com Access to web site blocked by malware protection Probably not Unknown No Probably not

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The creator of the article moved it from drafts to mainspace on his own, but clearly rushed it. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Neom. Although there is a bunch of third-party sites covering the topic, a good portion appear to be glorified press releases which don't say much of substance apart from "this stage of construction is progressing" or "here is the PR release for what this district will have". Almost all of them seem to discuss it as part of the wider Neom project rather than anything significant about it. At this juncture, it doesn't justify a standalone article in my opinion. ― novov (t c) 03:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. It would be useful to see what the nominator thinks of ATD mentioned in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 5 January 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 United Democratic Movement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yongama Zigebe

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

Fails NPOL and NBIO. Currently, the only source cited contains one sentence about the article subject: "Yongama Zigebe filled the secretary general position left vacant by Msomi." I could not find any other sources that provide significant coverage of the article subject. The article subject does not meet any of the secondary criteria in NPOL because he is not an elected government official. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm going to close this as No Consensus. This was primarily a dispute over whether this article should be Kept or Merged, I see some editors advocating for Deletion but I did not find their arguments to be very strong and some of the objections can be addressed by careful editing, some of which occurred during the time this discussion was open. So, the primary issue is whether or not some or all of this content should be Merged with another article(s). That discussion, and what the target article(s) should be, can proceed outside of the AFD arena on the article talk page. That is the proper place for an in depth Merge discussion that isn't time-sensitive like AFDs are. You might even consider copying some of the comments made here to start off that discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon monetary system

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

This fails the general notability guideline, and arguably our guidelines on writing about fiction, since the Nephites almost certainly did not exist yet this article treats the subject with complete credulity; that's probably because almost every single source is clearly not independent, being affiliated with or published by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is funded by Brigham Young University, which is funded by the LDS Church. Books published by Deseret Book Company: owned by LDS Church. Herald House: owned by the RLDS Church. If some article on Catholic doctrine was sourced solely to Jesuit journals, I'd say your point of comparison would make sense, but this isn't a situation where "they're talking about a Mormon topic and thus Mormon scholarship cannot be independent," it's that almost all the Mormon scholarship is directly connected to the Church. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The LDS and RLDS are different churches. A better comparison would be if an article on Catholic doctrine in the 14th century had writers from both the Catholic Church and the Methodists, or if an article on the Koran was written by organizations based in both the Sunni and Shia sects.Naraht (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But both are part of the Latter Day Saints movement, so they both have the same independence issues. They don't counter each other out, they have the same issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the independence argument has been explained very well by User:P-Makoto, so I'll repeat my notability/sigcov argument. Nobody is discussing this when they're not discussing the Book of Alma, the Nephites, or how it integrates with one of the above (how it helps explain the narrative of the former, or the setting of the latter). Also updating to a merge vote, coverage in that vein appears fairly substantial. A412 (Talk • C) 01:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: if the book of Mormon isn't historically rational then isn't the world it describes a fictional one? It doesn't describe the real world, it describes a religious fantasy world. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some independent sources, I'm not sure that any of them contain significant coverage of the topic at hand though... I would lead towards a merge with Book of Mormon or the pages suggested by A412. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a watered down version of this into Book of Alma as suggested by @A412. @David Fuchs misses that MOS:WAF specifically says “exemptions might apply to other special forms of literature in which the fiction/non-fiction categorization is disputed, such as the possibly historical elements of religious scripture” as religious texts are generally sorted with non-fiction in settings such as libraries, etc. That said, WP:INDISCRIMINATE makes me lean toward viewing this article as being overly detailed for the purposes of Wikipedia and that a summary description could be included with context in Book of Alma. DJ Cane (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "possibly historical elements" in Mormon scripture... Its not like Jewish, Hindu, or Christian scripture, none of it has been substantiated by historians. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you’re pretty set on making your view on that point obvious in this discussion but it is not relevant to whether or not this article should be deleted, merged, or kept. DJ Cane (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, fiction and myth are different. Fiction aims to entertain, myth aims to explain religious truths. There are good and bad fiction and good and bad myth, and of course everyone has their own set of preferred religious myth in line with their belief system... yes, even atheists. But nominating myth as fiction, even if pretty much every non-Mormon agrees that the myths related in the book of Mormon are indeed fiction, is rude. Myths that have RS coverage get articles, without reference to the truth or provability of those myths. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that what applies to a fictional world doesn't apply to a mythical world? I was under the impression that mythical was a type of fictional. What does that mean for something like Krapopolis? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason that is reasonable to also consider Mormon scriptures as fiction as opposed to only myth is that we can identify elements as so transparently self-serving (D&C 132:51-56, for example) that most reliable sources find it objectively unreasonable to believe that Joseph Smith believed what he wrote: he wrote fiction as myth for personal gain... But that's not how we treat myth here. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what specifically is the difference between treating them as fiction vs as myth? I don't find any difference that applies to this context in either policy or guideline... The sentence "X that have RS coverage get articles" is the exact same no matter whether you put fiction or myth in the X and the whole point is that this mythical figure does not have significant independent coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it makes no difference, why did you bring up the book being a fictional one that is not like Jewish, Hindu, or Christian scripture in the first place? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bring it up, I responded to the editor who did. I think you're also misquoting me... Its the world which the book described which I described as a fictional one, not the book. The difference between the Book of Mormon and those scriptures is that those scriptures contain possibly historical elements, the Book of Mormon does not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Description and analysis of the topic in multiple secondary sources demonstrates its sufficient notability, and it is a topic sufficiently discrete from suggested merges like Nephites and book of Alma; The Shire is a separate page from Hobbits and Fellowship of the Ring, for example.
Additionally, I would posit that social or institutional affiliation with Latter Day Saint denominations is not itself a failure of independence from, specifically, the topic of the Book of Mormon monetary system. As user A412 points out, "I don't think we can make the claim that religious scholarship is primary to the religious text". There was a conversation about this at WikiProject Christianity where the advice given was that using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions. Wikipedia itself does not put in its own voice claims that aren't NPOV, but as the Oxford University Press-published book Understanding the Book of Mormon (pp. 23–26) explains, speculation about a setting's mechanics has a long history in the literary analysis of fiction, and that can be as true for the Book of Mormon, making Nephite existence irrelevant to the analysis in the articles by Takagi and Couch. And what is Takagi's or Couch's financial or legal relationship to, specifically, the Book of Mormon monetary system? If their sources were being cited for something about the history of BYU, then I could understand non-independence. But BYU's participation in Mormonism doesn't make the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies or BYU Studies non-independent of content in the Book of Mormon any more than, to give an example, Baylor University's participation in the Baptist tradition would make it non-independent of content in the Bible. Baylor University Press's Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr is independent of the biblical figure Peter, though Baylor University Press is not independent of Baylor University. In a similar way, I hold that "Gold, Silver, and Grain" is independent of the Book of Mormon monetary system.
Finally, I would point out that there are cited sources from publishers without institutional affiliations. John Christopher Thomas's A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon from CPT Press is not affiliated with the LDS Church. And the commentaries The Book of Mormon for the Least of These and Second Witness are published with publishers that, while specializing in Mormon studies, are independent of religious institutions. To say that By Common Consent Press or Greg Kofford Books lack independence would be like saying that the University of Illinois Press, which also has a specialization in Mormon studies publications, is not independent of Book of Mormon topics. All this is to say that whatever one concludes about the topic's notability, it is not the case that "almost every single source is clearly not independent". Multiple sources have clear independence, as they don't have the attributes which the nominator says contests independence (institutional affiliation with a particular denomination). To close, I think that the article requires some revision—there are some portions that lean undue and could be trimmed, and multiple uses of the past tense that should be replaced with the present tense, befitting narration of literary content and to make it clearer that Wikipedia is describing this simply as content in a book—but I think the page should be kept. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The article is well-researched and well-written. However, we need sources from outside the financial and ideological control of LDS churches to establish that this topic is of broad, real-world importance. We do not get NPOV or evidence of notability when the sources of SIGCOV are exclusively from people who believe the historicity of this material, who have a vested interest in maintaining its narrative and increasing its reach, and/or who are directly financially involved with the organizations that dictate which material is acceptable within the religion. Apologist researchers are necessarily going to approach issues between scripture vs non-LDS academic consensus (in history/archaeology/anthro etc.) very differently from those looking at the topic from a non-LDS/secular perspective.
For example, the article predictably deemphasizes the substantial anachronism surrounding the existence of Nephite coins (Lehi left Jerusalem before coins were invented, and no Nephite coins--or Nephite anything--have been found in America) and seemingly skips the whole controversy regarding the addition of the word "coins" to Alma 11 chapter summaries by the Church Authority in 1920 and the ad hoc attempt by FAIR to then reconcile mentions of "pieces" of gold and silver in the context of money as actually being references to a system of weights and measures (despite no such metal weights being discovered either).
JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside our disagreement about the topic's notability, I would point out that if there is thinking that the article has problems, Articles for Deletion is not for articles that need cleanup, but rather for articles that do not belong on Wikipedia. If cleanup is what's needed, an article can be fixed. Toward that end, I have gone ahead and revised the page. One of the revisions took the page's existing reference to the coinage/pieces matter in passing and rendered it more explicitly. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello. As the creator of this article I want to apologize for my portrayal of the Book of Mormon monetary system as fact. Originally when I created the article I thought I had taken a neutral stance, but now I can see that, in fact, I did not. I understand that people have different views on this point and I am grateful that we can discuss this. I appreciate everyone's participation in this discussion. The article has great need for revision. Thank you to P-Makoto for her extensive edits that shifted the language of the article and presented the material as strictly within the Book of Mormon narrative. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because secondary, independent coverage exists. I am extremely hesitant to describe religious scholars as categorically non-independent, even in the context of a very hierarchical religion. As noted above, that is inconsistent with how we treat other religions. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhinyTheYounger: What religions are you seeing whose treatment is inconsistent? Its at the minimum how we treat Judaism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, the Unification Church, and Falun Gong... Those are the other religious areas I have significant experience in on wiki, but perhaps there actually are ones which where we treat non-independent sources as independent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we treat religious affiliation alone as indicator that a source is not independent and thus unsuitable to meet WP:N. If that were true, then an article like Vatican Pharmacy would be suspect — except for sources 5 and 6, they all appear to be from explicitly Catholic sources. Obviously, the Pharmacy is real, and not mythical, but what about a relatively obscure Catholic Saint for whom most or all sources are Catholic (like Alban Roe or Albert of Trapani)? I'd not assume those sources are completely non-independent, and I'd be fine treating them as establishing notability. (I also don't think the (non-)historicity of the Book of Mormon is relevant when it comes to determining whether a source is independent, as another commenter noted above.) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has proposed that we treat religious affiliation alone as indicator that a source is not independent unless I missed something. If you would like to challenge the notability of Vatican Pharmacy you can, but I suspect that there are suitable independent sources (notability is after all never limited to the sources in the article). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as I see no consensus yet. I'm a little doubtful that, with opinions circling around the LDS church and not the notabiity of the article subject established by reliable sources, a consensus can be arrived at. But still it is worth it to give this discussion a little more time. I'm aware that it's frowned upon to use the term "LDS church" but I don't have the time right now to track down the new established nomenclature.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Its Mormon Church which is now frowned upon... LDS Church (with a big C) is the new established nomenclature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By way of aside (and noting that this is solely for clarification and doesn't strictly pertain to the deletion discussion), my understanding is that "LDS Church" is the consensus of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I don't know if I'd quite call it "new," as it has been around as a phrase for years, since the 1950s at least. Wikipedia's Manual of Style does indeed discourage "Mormon Church" as an "informal appellation" and has done so since 2011.
As far as "frowned upon" goes, the denomination itself requests the use of its full name in first mentions and "the Church of Jesus Christ" in subsequent mentions and apparently dissuades the use of "LDS" and LDS Church". That is not, however, something Wikipedia's own Manual of Style commits to for its main article pages. As for what terminology an individual user wishes to use on discussion pages, I suppose that's up to them. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes by "new" I was thinking we were talking post 2011 on wiki. Thanks for the links to the official Church style guide. I doubt Church of Jesus Christ will ever get consensus for use, its so ambiguous as to be nearly useless for encyclopedic purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely to clear up an inadvertent misunderstanding, I will clarify that I did not share multiple links to the official Church style guide (there would be no need to link to it more than once). I shared only one link to the Latter-day Saints' own style guide, to source its disinclination for "LDS Church". The other links were to a book published in 1953 with the phrase "L. D. S. Church" in the title (as a primary source to demonstrate the longterm use of "LDS Church"), to a CNN news article about the denomination's 2018 announcement requesting that others refrain from the word "Mormon" (as a secondary source about that request, since that more recent happening was potentially what Liz referred to as new nomenclature), and to MOS:LDS (twice; once for the current page, once for a version from 2011). In any case, the Manual of Style's current instruction for shortened reference is "LDS Church", and that has been a consensus for some time. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate the clarification. I just remember that this was a big deal in Categories about two years ago when an editor set about renaming a large number of categories because the term that was being used was seen as insulting. Maybe it isn't such a sensitive issue now. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that Latter-day Saints themselves still consider it a sensitive issue, whatever the presently documented apparent consensus. The Manual of Style consensus has, from what I understand, held, but not uncontested (permalink). Consensus can change, and they can stay the same; what this consensus' future is, I wouldn't claim to know. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, the Church does find it insulting (A victory for Satan), in practice even among members... the issue is that the (as of 2024) preferred use in Media by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is to use Church of Jesus Christ as an abbreviation after the first usage more or less gets a *NOPE* from the media starting with the main non LDS controlled Newspaper in Utah, the Salt Lake Tribune. See Mormon (word) for recent history.Naraht (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting the faith and its followers is important, but I think we need to keep in mind that the next President after Russel can just as easily rehabilitate "Mormon" as Russel banished it... Its not settled Church doctrine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally make no attempt to predict what may or may not happen in the WP:FUTURE and focus on, in the present, being respectful of others in my personal use of language while adhering to Wikipedia policies on article pages. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Might agree to selective Merge as a very last resort (ATD). There is a serious notability issue of the article subject. The article is not clear that it is a work of fiction. The article creator apologized for making it appear the article was fact. The article does not approach the subject from a clear perspective which makes it appear to be non-fiction when in fact it is a tale, or by definition: "a story, especially one that might be invented or difficult to believe". Why is this important? Not everyone that reads the article will read this talk page. It doesn't matter if unintentional or willful there is currently subterfuge. The article uses the terms "narrative of the Book of Mormon" or "Book of Mormon narrative". These words are indicative of an "LDS/secular perspective" that are not "independent of the subject". Since there are no clear rules on works of fiction we must use other tests such as the GNG guidelines. This article fails to provide reliable sources that are not in some way connected to the subject. This means there is certainly no chance of the article being written from a neutral point of view. See: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references includes those that are in no way controlled by either the LDS or CoC (formerly RLDS). Wikipedia treats Scripture as being different from Fiction. I'm certainly not going to support deletion of the article on Noah's ark if every reference is to a Jew, Christian or Muslim. This isn't Harry Potter and "The gold ones are Galleons. Seventeen silver Sickles to a Galleon and twenty-nine Knuts to a Sickle, it's easy enough.".Naraht (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nephites or Book of Alma, per all of the above reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been extensively edited to fix fiction versus non-fiction issues, and no longer addresses the topic in a manner that lacks neutrality. Examples of such language include "within the narrative," "within the Book of Mormon," "narrative describes its setting," "people in the narrative." I do not see anything in these examples that posit a non-neutral stance. As I see it, revisions have made it so the article presents the monetary system as existing within the Book of Mormon narrative. Additionally, most of the sources are independent from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The following sources are separate and independent from LDS publication: A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon (CPT Press, which is a company that primarily publishes Pentecostal works); What Hath God Wrought and Annotated Book of Mormon (Oxford University Press, which dedicates itself to publishing scholarly works); and Early Nineteenth-century America and the Book of Mormon (Signature Books, which focuses on LDS history that is not published by the church itself--see "About Signature".). Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heidi Pusey BYU: are you aware of WP:COI and WP:PAID? Because you appear to have voted in an AfD in which you have a massive conflict of interest as a paid editor of the LDS Church despite that being prohibited... e.g. "you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heidi Pusey has a paid conflict of interest for BYU, her employer. This is not a page about BYU. This is a page about an aspect of the setting in the Book of Mormon. Do employees of the U. S. federal government's Postal Service have a conflict of interest for articles involving aspects of literature written by the American founders? They do not. Nor does Heidi Pusey BYU have a conflict of interest for the Book of Mormon monetary system.
Even if one supposes that Heidi Pusey BYU does have a COI for this topic, what she has done is cast a vote in an Articles for Deletion discussion. She has not reviewed or closed the discussion. She has not acted as a reviewer at Articles for Creation (AfC). She has not acted as a reviewer for the new pages patrol. From what I am seeing in Wikipedia policy, Heidi Pusey BYU's vote here would not be prohibited. In any case, she has disclosed her COI for her employer BYU, and this is not a page about a BYU topic.
Book of Mormon monetary system is not the only page Heidi Pusey BYU contributes to that you have gone out of your way to comment on. Now you are escalating to COI aspersions. It is difficult for this user to not be reminded of another occasion on which you began complaining about [a user] in multiple places and it is beginning to seem personal. This pattern of behavior is becoming alarming, and I invite you to reconsider it and let the AfD vote proceed on its own. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BYU is a non-independent arm of the LDS Church... This is an LDS topic. She is currently acting as a reviewer in an AfD. Please don't make this personal, the COI is a fact not an aspersion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are operating on a very liberal reading of WP:COI when WP:COIE further discusses the subject. COI is more of a situation when a paid editor is editing about a company or person that could be directly impacted by coverage in Wikipedia. An example of this would be if Elon Musk paid employees to edit pages about himself and his companies. Student employees of the BYU library adding coverage about Latter-day Saint subjects does not meet that criteria any more than an editor in such a role at Notre Dame editing articles about Catholicism or one at the University of Texas editing articles about state government would - a declaration of such being a COI would be rediculous. Per COIE this seems more like a Wikipedian in Residence position and their position as such is made blatantly obvious by appropriate disclaimer and by their username.
Furthermore, your zeal in confronting opinions opposing your own in this discussion is both non-constructive and alarming, and I agree with the discussion provided by @P-Makoto that your cross-discussion comments targeting specific editors is concerning and possibly worth an outside review on its own. DJ Cane (talk) 15:07, 4 January 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! 22:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetraapeirogonal tiling

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

The subject is not notable. As with the now deleted pentaapeirogonal tiling, this tiling is not mentioned of this tiling in the cited sources. Searching for the name yields next to nothing, although it may go by another name in reliable sources. As it stands, the article appears to be entirely original research. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Armenia women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paytsar Asatryan

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hayastan Jan. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayastan Jan (TV series)

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

Article was originally created from copyvios in 2017 and has remained stubbish since. Relies on one source with no clear notability for subject and article as-is fails WP:GNG. There's also no other language-wiki pages for this show. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ Dan the Animator 18:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of the Republic of Artsakh

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

Stubbish article that's existed for over a decade with no other language wiki versions and has little chance of expansion. The article's content currently consists of duplicated content from its linked articles and doesn't have any original content from what I can tell. I'm not familiar with "Military history" articles but to me, I can't see the utility of this article. All of its current content is already covered in the main Republic of Artsakh article I think as well as its subarticles. Much of the history of Artsakh deals with "military history" as well so I'm not exactly sure what differentiates this from the main History of Artsakh article. Would like to others' thoughts on this though. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Dan the Animator 22:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article needs improvement, but it fits into SUMMARYSTYLE well, I don't think stubbish really describes the article. This would fit as the parent article for the military history articles summarized and hatted in the article. Article lacks sources, but the needed refs are present in the child articles to show this meets GNG and fits into a reasonable SUMMARYSTYLE structure. I can see how this dups some content from the main Republic of Artsakh article, but this I think is a reason for improvement, not deletion.  // Timothy :: talk  07:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this could/should be developed, but it requires a proficiency in Armenian that I do not have, so I cannot really help there. With regards to the difference with the main article, well, I believe this one could deal with a lot of minutiae that are unsuitable for History of Artsakh (comments on military equipment, individual battles, etc.). It will need a lot of babysitting, though, as PoV wars are bound to happen. Ostalgia (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. This means that substantial work is necessary for this article to survive in main space so this should not be construed as permission to move it back in the near future or we will be back for AFD 2 for this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Angel (Malayalam Film)

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

No evidence of notability. Apart from the News18 reference, none of the sources provided appear to be reliable. A check before nomination didn't turn up anything else either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that the article for "Guardian Angel (Malayalam Film)" has been nominated for deletion. I believe this article should be kept and here are my reasons:
1. **Upcoming Film**: "Guardian Angel" is an upcoming Malayalam film. As it is yet to be released, references and sources about the film might be limited at this point. However, all available sources have been properly cited in the article.
2. **New Talents**: The film introduces new talents to the industry, which is noteworthy. It provides a platform for new actors and crew members, contributing to the diversity and growth of Malayalam cinema.
3. **Reliable Sources**: Despite being an upcoming film with new actors, the article is backed by all available reliable sources, including news articles and official announcements. These sources provide verifiable information about the film's production, cast, and release. I have recently added more sources to further strengthen the article's credibility. Some of these sources are in Malayalam, reflecting the film's cultural and linguistic context.
4. **Content**: The article provides comprehensive information about the film, including details about the plot, cast, production, and promotional events. This information is valuable to readers interested in Malayalam cinema.
I understand the concerns raised in the nomination, and I am committed to addressing them. I have already made some edits to improve the article and will continue to do so. I believe that with further improvements, this article can meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.
Thank you for considering my viewpoint.
Best,
Littleframes Littleframes (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Database of Recorded American Music

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

Has twice been to AfD as N/C in 2016 and 2017, but given the significant changes in notability since then, it's time to revisit it. I am unable to find anywhere near the depth of sourcing required for N:ORG which appears to be the best barometer for this database. Star Mississippi 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Added some sources. A simple Google search of "Database of Recorded American Music" brings up oodles of university sites that provide access to this database. There's no doubt this is notable. The link I added from The Recording Industry Association of America® (RIAA) has a pretty impressive graph of 1973-2022 sales. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Habeck

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handle-o-Meter

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and product-specifc notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Delete this could be merged to Johnson & Johnson, but my merge proposal attracted only one comment and that was against the proposal, as it wasn't clear if this material is notable enough for inclusion in that article. I could find no evidence it was notable enough for a standalone article. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD's.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Hansen Jr., Orin C.; Marker, Leon; Ninnemann, Karl W.; Sweeting, Orville J. (1963). "Relationship between dynamic modulus of thin films and stiffness, as determined by the Handle-O-Meter". Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 7 (3): 817–832. doi:10.1002/app.1963.070070303.
- D H Morton; A Marks (1965). "The measurement of flexural rigidity of thin polymeric films". Journal of Scientific Instruments. 42 (8): 591. doi:10.1088/0950-7671/42/8/327.
- Gordon L. Robertson (2016). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, Third Edition. CRC Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781439862421.
- The Complete Technology Book On Plastic Films, Hdpe And Thermoset Plastics. NIIR Project Consultancy Services. 2006. pp. 148–150. ISBN 9788178330112.
- Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. Vol. 48. Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. 1965. pp. 58–61.
SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third and fourth source are purely passing mentions. The other three discuss, via experiment results, the limits of the tool's usefulness. Looking at what I can, and comparing with what's written in GNG, it looks like these could fail via discussion: 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. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I posit that any information gleaned from these sources would simply be an indiscriminate collection of information and so fails GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider UtherSRG's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources located by SailingInABathTub (not UtherSRG as the relist note says) are enough to convince me that this is a notable technical device within the paper industry. Following the references from one of the cited papers, I was able to locate a digitized copy of the 1955 trade publication article that announced the product: [4]. It's not an independent source, so it doesn't contribute to notability, but it looks like a useful source to flesh out the article. I'm often astonished what obscure sources can be found on the internet these days! Jfire (talk) 06:26, 10 January 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter B. Hargreaves

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and music bio specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previously-declined prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least tentatively. A Google book search brings up multiple refs but unfortunately they are all snippets. They do demonstrate sustained coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Whether or not they are in depth I can’t say but given the number I think we should err on the side of caution. Mccapra (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mccapra: If they are all snippets, then they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV and, therefore, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context of Google books, "snippets" refers to the limited amount of material that Google displays for many copyrighted works, not to the significance of the material in total, which can only be definitely assessed with access to the complete work. Jfire (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 5 January 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) Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cdrdao

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

Zero independent reliable sources covering this software. Not notable. Changed my opinion after the major work done by StreetcarEnjoyer (thank you!), now I don't think it should be deleted. I believe I have the right to withdraw the nomination since both people here are leaning towards keeping. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did what I could. Hope this helps. It was mentioned in enough books and articles that makes me think it's notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:45, 1 January 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 draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Nolan (footballer)

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

Young footballer made a brief debut in a cup game but is yet to attract any significant coverage. He was covered in a local paper and on his club website but it's not enough. Currently TOOSOON so should likely be draftified or deleted. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ses'Top La

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 20:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of most luminous stars. The anchor can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G0.238-0.071

G0.238-0.071 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Only one paper appears to mention it explicitly, however, that one only mentioned it three times in the exact same section. Because of this, it fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is still probably the most luminous known star that is not an erupting LBV. Maybe redirect it to List of most luminous stars? Diamantinasaurus (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 13:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: being the most luminous non-variable star known should be enough to make this more than a line in a list. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a luminosity estimate in a broader list from a single source (without even an error estimate) isn't enough to establish notability. Per the above and the Sagan standard, I think we should require confirmation from an independent study before allowing the extraordinary claim that this is the "most luminous non-variable star known". Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the luminous star list seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 5 January 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 List of curlers#France. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Indergand

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

Not meeting WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NCURL.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salem el-Masri

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

Does not meet notability guidelines

The article has only one valid source in terms of WP:SIGCOV (a book, the other source is primary evidence at a US senate hearing). I can find no hits on google that aren't wiki-mirrors, nothing on google scholar. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is almost certainly not even his name. It follows the pattern for takfiri terrorist noms-de-guerre, [name]-el-[demonym], in this case "Salem the Egyptian".Boynamedsue (talk) 21:04, 3 January 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. Star Mississippi 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer Nadia

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

Non notable 41 minutes telefilm. There is zero significant coverage, review about this telefilm. All references looks promotional. Also notability isn’t inherited, State Minister for ICT Zunaid Ahmed Palak made a star appearance in this telefilm doesn’t make it notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:45, 5 January 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 List of Bangladeshi films of 2022. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shada Private

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

Non notable telefilm. There is zero significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Source in article and found in BEFORE are mentions, promos, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGOCV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  03:03, 12 January 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. Daniel (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Francis

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

In this article, simply being the nth oldest person alive is not enough for it to be notable. Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people list criteria that I think rancis demonstrates well.
Basic criteria:
1. In-depth coverage over multiple sources - Francis has news articles from multiple RS such as ABC and WaPo covering her life specifically in multiple articles over the course of multiple of her birthdays (i.e. she isn't some fad that people celebrated when she turned 110 and then ignored her forever).
2. Primary sources - Article still maintains RS without primary sources or primary documents.
Other:
She also avoids the invalid criteria listed, such as the relationship thing (she is the subject, does not share a relationship to one), and does not rely on the web rankings for significance. Her achievement of longevity alone (as supported by the GRG) is her notability. While the "nth oldest person alive" is her claim to fame in the article, she exhibits more than enough RS for an achievement for notability imo. EytanMelech (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity, what notability criteria, if any, are you basing your nomination on? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia measures notability in terms of obtaining coverage, not in terms of obtaining records. And here, we have coverage in spades, from The Washington Post all the way to The Jerusalem Post. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: I just read your comments on this page and the other page. I should've done a quick Google search to see if there are plenty of reliable sources that demonstrate that these two people are notable. I just figured that the reason for notability was only because of her age and nothing else. From now on, before I nominate oldest people pages, I will be more careful in doing so. I own my mistakes and it was totally my fault for doing so. Thank you for your understanding. Interstellarity (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Interstellarity—appreciate the sentiment. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Berg

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

In this article, simply being the nth oldest person alive is not enough for it to be notable. Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ and salted. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Century Financial Consultancy

Century Financial Consultancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The history here is a little complex. A previous version, at Century Financial, was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial. Liz closed that AfD rightly, but after she did, we found that User:Antonio Vinzaretti wasn't in good faith, which puts its conclusion in a bit of doubt. Then the article was re-created at Century Financial Consultancy and immediately draftified by BoroVoro. Then it was re-created again and speedily deleted by Kuru under WP:G11 (or alternatively WP:G4 although this second ground isn't in the logs).
The creator complained about these actions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 19. Deletion review concluded that the speedy deletions didn't meet the letter of either WP:G4 or WP:G11. DRV interprets speedy deletion criteria narrowly and restores if there's doubt.
But there's clearly an appetite among independent reviewers to delete this content. Kuru described it as SEO material with fake sources that failed validation. Several users at the deletion review didn't feel that this content belongs in mainspace, and I rather agree with them. I think we need to have a proper AfD that seriously examines these sources and is conducted without the socking that tainted the previous one. —S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete he article on Century Financial Consultancy lacks independent reliable sources to establish notability as per WP:ORG. References provided seem like sponsored content (Gulf, Khaleej), The article's promotional tone violates also clearly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV. As for the creator BoroVoro, looking through his history is alarming. He drafties quite frequently, often before he's supposed to it seems, and it appears to be quite a red flag. It seems like this company page is tangled up with sock-puppetry, UPE, and intentional edits of bad faith. No accusations (I will assume good faith), but very strange all of this. Also ref-bombing. All of this screams red flag.
PD Slessor (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am the creator though I am fairly inexperienced. I am not aware of the respected other editor you have mentioned. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep:

Sir, Multiple Wikipedia editors have commented that the content is not promotional. There are also enough neutral sources available. They were recently voted as the best workplace to work in the GCC(Whole of Gulf)


Recent achievements Century financial was voted as the best workplace to work in the UAE and the best workplace for women https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-tops-the-best-workplaces-for-women-in-the-gcc

Also they made an investment of 100 million dollars into the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. https://awaamkibaat.jk.gov.in/jk-govt-signs-mou-with-century-financial-for-100-million-investment-in-jammu-kashmir/ (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Here are some sources I could find, I am not too good at selecting which ones are notable

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/century-financial-vision-passion-and-a-commitment-to-excellence-1.1698302255172

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/shaping-a-greener-future-collaborative-strategies-for-the-financial-sector

https://gulfnews.com/amp/uae/environment/women-leaders-tackle-ways-to-strike-a-balance-between-growth-sustainability-1.98552371

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-wins-big-again

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/corporate-news/uae-based-financial-sector-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-spearhead-sustainability-goals-ahead-of-cop28-1.1679900257627 (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT is useful in understanding what sources should be used in articles about organisations.
I'd like like to note that my 'delete' opinion is based on WP:TNT and Wikipedia:Verifiability considerations: there's evidence of presented publications offering sponsored publications in their media kits and I couldn't find other English-language significant coverage, but I found that company's spokespeople are being routinely interviewed by Bloomberg on UAE-related matters (search for '"century financial" uae' in Wikimedia Library), so couldn't form a definite opinion whether it's notable or not. What's certain though, is that the sources used in both versions of the article (Century Financial and the one being currently discussed) are mostly inappropriate, as they're neither reliable for verification or helpful to establish Wikipedia:Notability, and the promotional thrust of both articles is unsuitable. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering the history od this article, would prefer a more definitive consensus either way here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Gulf News is used for multiple references, it's listed as a marginally acceptable source per wiki and is yellow per the source toolbot... Having happy employees is great, but sourcing is usual corporate fluff articles or PR items saying where the company is investing. I still don't see NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and SALT for six months, for the same reasons it was deleted the previous time. This is a REFBOMBed corporate promotion piece, with no independent SIGCOV to establish notability. The previous AfD would have been closed exactly the same way even without Antonio Vinzaretti's tainted !vote. DRV didn't reject G4/G11, it simply declined to adjudicate on the matter, and rightly so. The latest incarnation could have--and I believe should have--been speedied as G4/G11. But as the nom says, we're here now, let's do this properly so that we don't have to do it again in two weeks. Owen× ☎ 21:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JM (talk) 00:56, 6 January 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. I appreciate the source analysis. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Etawah (1770)

Siege of Etawah (1770) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be almost wholly unotable. Maybe a few scatered single-line references, a list entry. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of additions to the content of the article since its nomination. This is a situation where a good source analysis from an editor knowledgeable about this area of military history would be helpful to see whether or not this subject does hold "academic significance".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Looking at the sources something happened around the end of 1770, but nothing called Siege of Etawah. I don't think any of the references in the article meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Not every event in every battle of every war needs a stand alone article.
I did a source eval for the first eight refs:
Comments Source
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth 1. Sardesai Govind Sakharam (1948). New History Of The Marathas Vol-ii 1707-1772 (1948). B. G. Dhawale, Bombay. p. 511.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth. I don't think this souce passes the NPOV test it seems very much like the victor writing their version of the history, [6] 2. ^ Rise & Fall Of Maratha Empire ( RV Nadkarni). 1966. p. 242.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject or a seige on the indicated date 3. ^ Naravane, M. S. (1999). The Rajputs of Rajputana: A Glimpse of Medieval Rajasthan. APH Publishing. p. 119. ISBN 978-81-7648-118-2.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title 4. ^ Bond, J. W.; Wright, Arnold (2006). Indian States: A Biographical, Historical, and Administrative Survey. Asian Educational Services. p. 78. ISBN 978-81-206-1965-4.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title 5. ^ Rise & Fall Of Maratha Empire ( RV Nadkarni). 1966. p. 243.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title 6. ^ Ghosh, D. K. Ed (1978). A Comprehensive History Of India Vol. 9. pp. 161–162.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title[7], history in book goes only to 1748 7. ^ Chandra, Satish (1999). Medieval India: Mughal Empire, 1526-1748. Har-Anand Publications. p. 516. ISBN 978-81-241-0522-1.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, nothing about a seige, just states it was captured 8. ^ Parkash, Ram; Sharma, Ram Prakash (1960). The Foreign Policy of Warren Hastings. Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute.
This convinced me there is nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV about the event, nothing confirming a "Siege of Etawah" is a recognized name for this event.
The refbombing is obvious, if an editor finds sources for the "Siege of Etawah" with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me with the refs showing this event merits a stand alone article, just the best three refs, no need for more, I won't read through a refbomb.  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 7 January 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 Léger (company). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insights West

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

Unreferenced article, subject is not notable. Broc (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Sannino

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

Current article reads like a resume and has been listed for notability since 2013. There do not appear to be sufficient independent sources to meet WP:BIO. An extensive list of Sannino's published works can be found here, but it is unclear if his research is influential enough to meet WP:PROF. Uffda608 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:42, 5 January 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. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajin Ahmed Babu

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Created very recently so would prefer not to soft-delete. Relisting to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval:
Comments Source
Name on page, no content 1. "Sajin Ahmed Babu" . December 29, 2023.
Promo, interview 2. ^ "Mosharraf-Mamar Drama High Love" . December 29, 2023.
Promo name mention 3. ^ "New series 'Corporate Love' and 'Google Village' coming up"". December 29, 2023.
Interview, fails WP:IS 4. ^ "Writing novels now" . December 28, 2023.
Interview, fails WP:IS 5. ^ "Plays have to be written within constraints: Babu" . December 28, 2023.
Promo name mention 6. ^ "Padshi-Yash's romance in Eid special drama" . December 29, 2023.
Promo name mention 7. ^ "Sajin Ahmed Babu's 'Corporate Love' Begins Today" . December 29, 2023.
BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Human trafficking in the United States. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary slavery in the United States

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

A duplicate article of Human trafficking in the United States. A bunch of sources here talk about "human trafficking" and not slavery. Regardless, their interchangeable use and otherwise unclear distinction in reliable sources fails the use-mention distinction, a stated prerequisite in relevant policy like WP:NOTNEO. So it would make sense to delete/merge this one and keep the other one with a more neutral title and which doesn't have any maintenance tags. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:46, 5 January 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. No prejudice against renomination, due to low participation. Complex/Rational 03:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the Arts

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

Non-notable and defunct non-profit. Orphaned for nearly a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of citations and orphaning as mentioned by @Pepperbeast. VERY WP:PUFFERY too. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Article content does not determine notability". The fact that an article wants for cites or links is irrelevant, because Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... [I]f the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter if there is no interest in the article and it gets orphaned. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral due to WP:MOS not having an affect as I believed. I also believed orphaning affected status, which it doesn't. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 19 January 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 merge‎ to F3 Derby. While there's a case made for it being an unlikely search, a redirect would be needed for attribution purposes Star Mississippi 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Mariners FC 2–8 Newcastle Jets FC

Central Coast Mariners FC 2–8 Newcastle Jets FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. No aftermath out of the ordinary. More than enough to mention it on a record list, as well as in the F3 Derby. Geschichte (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge. While I agree much of the game is not notable, the record of being the "highest scoring-match in A-league history" is. I also see it passing notability (events) in every category and think it passes to a degree via WP:SPORTS at least to the level of the record being notable. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:16, 5 January 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. Star Mississippi 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loved One (album)

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

Album produced by an artist deleted as not notable. Two other albums can be considered together with this one: All in the Silence and Kentoverse Imaginatorium (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further background from proposer: The artist's page was recently deleted - see deletion discussion. As in the artist's page, this album has obvious promotional style, and almost all content has been added by the same editors. For example, the most recent addition is a "prize" on "Song of the year", discussed here: forum, which strongly suggests this is merely a paid-for award, but it is actually only listed as "Category Finalists", not prizewinner. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And pinging editors contributing to the artist's deletion discussion: @Michitaro, Nuraa.sinora, Loriendrew, Kaori Muraji, Tal Essen, and Eduardo Augusto:. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural close. Do not open a new AFD the day after the previous AFD closed. This is very questionable behavior from the nominator. When I said that a return trip to AFD was possible, I meant in a few weeks or months, not in a few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative

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

I could not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for this topic, let alone for the more stringent WP:CORPDEPTH.

The single reference present in the article does not contain "Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative".

Previous discussion was infested by an alt account who went off on a tangent on how it is not fair for him to get new user mentoring. This is why the close suggested no prejudice towards renominating at AfD. बिनोद थारू (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - First of all, this looks to me like somebody didn't like the outcome and is running this within hours of the first close. The mentoring issue was irrelevant to this. It was a side issue that one editor had been assigned to "mentor" a specific editor without the mentored editor asking for mentoring, or even knowing about it ahead of time. What alt account and alt/sock puppet thing mentioned above?
Please see North Dakota's Electric Distribution Cooperatives and click on this particular coop. I also linked Rural Electrification Act, which is the detailed legislation that created these coops during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. I repeat here original comments about electric co-ops, so readers know what they are: Re Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States. In the United States, these electric coops are the energy-providing life blood of rural areas. Some articles are well-done and fairly well-sourced. Some articles are done just like this one is done. Prior to that, much of rural America had nothing but what a local area could put together, if anything. That said ... you can nit-pick and delete the sparse ones like this, or you can come up with a better solution. — Maile (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Please see North Dakota's Electric Distribution Cooperatives

This source only contains a link to their website. No coverage at all. Please see WP:ORGDEPTH for the criteria. This comment is not in line with WP:OR. If extremely sparse primary sources were to be patched together, then original research would be needed to complete the article (like drawing connections with the Rural Electrification Act, for example). बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative, Clearwater-Polk Electric Cooperative, Minnkota Power Cooperative, Nodak Electric Cooperative, North Star Electric Cooperative,: PKM Electric Cooperative, Red Lake Electric Cooperative, Red River [...] (Farmers Independent. ‎Mar 17, 1993)
  • They were cruising up and down the ditches having a good old time," said Kerry Mikkelsen, line superintendent for1 the Cavalier Rural Electric Co-op in Langdon (McCook Daily Gazette. ‎May 14, 2004)
  • Cavalier Rural Electric Board for over 30 years, taking his father's place when Irwhi retired from the board. (Turtle Mountain Star. ‎Dec 10, 2007)
Using those as basis for an article would be an egregious failure of WP:PRIMARY and the corporations guideline.
The best source I have been able to find, not a newspaper, is "Report of the Rural Electrification Administration (1953)". It is searchable on Google with the term "Cavalier Rural Electric" (with quotes).
The enthusiasm for the development of rural electrification in the Great Plains was vividly demonstrated at the meeting of Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative, shortly after VJ-day. More than 700 farmers and their families crowded into the little school auditorium at Langdon, N. Dak., to hear about the new Cavalier Co-op and what it could do for them. Co-op leaders, remembering the prewar skepticism of many North Dakota farmers when electricity for their homes and farms was discussed, had doubted that more than 40 would turn out for the meeting. The North Dakota farmers by thousands clamored for electricity. That demand spread across the Nation in every type of farming area. Even in Alaska [...]
The only information one can take out of that is that it was created between 1944-1953. Yet the creation date is present in all of the company articles that get routinely deleted here. And saying it was created in 1944-1953 can be construed as original research, since the source doesn't directly say it.
बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In order to build an encyclopedia, the community created {{citation needed}} tags.
  2. The previous AfD came on the heels of this failed WP:PROD initiated by the nom, who is now using a different rationale. This is after the admin who closed out the previous AfD wrote I just want to emphasize that BEFORE is an important step prior to any AFD nomination and it's useful to share the results of any BEFORE search that was done. Here is WP:BEFORE.
  3. The community is not obligated to tediously devote resources to flagrant wikilawyering by a single-purpose editor specializing in AfDs (contributions history).
  4. As regards WP:SIGCOV, a non-profit electrical utility that serves an essential service (electricity) to many thousands of users is far-cry from some random Dairy Queen or “Al’s Tire-O-Rama” in nearby Belcourt on State Route 10. Citing WP:SIGCOV as a basis for deleting this article flies in the face of the very reason we have Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States.
Greg L (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural close - The last AfD has only just concluded, and although Liz said there was no penalty against a return trip, I am sure she did not mean a return trip on the same day she closed it! The AfD was closed as no consensus. Leave it two months before re-nominating. It gives a chance to improve the page/find sources and if nothing changes, then sure, bring it back to AfD at the beginning of March. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The previous discussion (which I didn't even start) was interrupted by three people (Locke Cole, Greg L and his alt MLee1957) who were angry at my prior nomination of a WP:FAKEARTICLE-type user page [13]. So the closer allowed to renominate it with no prejudice.
    If it were a case of no consensus due to strong keep/delete votes and no alts, then yes, it would be advisable to wait half a year before obtaining new consensus. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@बिनोद थारू:: With regard to WP:FAKEARTICLE, you need to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and its processes and infrastructure. WP:Sandboxex are where editors work on articles outside of user-space; that’s what they’re there for. As for User:MLee1957 being an “Alt” account, this sockpuppet investigation resulted in the obvious conclusion as follows: which clearly indicates two people in two separate places. I ask you to not engage in baseless allegations on that score from hereon. Greg L (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second the motion for Speedy procedural close in part, per the reasons stated by Sirfurboy🏄. More importantly, I spent a small fraction of the time the community has so-far wasted on this disruption by adding two much-needed citations establishing where Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative is headquartered and what area it serves. Thus, the foundational premiss upon which this AfD is based is moot. Adding citations beats and endless cycle tendentious wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been established by others here that Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative is A) notable (electrical co-ops have their own category here on Wikipedia), B) this AFD was improperly brought against the directions of the person who closed the last one, C) the article now has citations on two key facts. First a PROD, then an AFD. This new AFD, fresh on the heels of the previous one, should not have been started. MLee1957 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Belmont

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the reception were listicles and rankings. Simon quest's were the only notable, not him (He is not a complex character or something). The only good sources were this [14] and perhaps this? [15] GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. While there's some discussion about a merge to the primary character page being proper, there is no consensus to delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongli (Genshin Impact)

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

Fails GNG. This character has receive little to zero commentary. The only good sources were the criticism about its gameplay? but those doesn't really help; others were trivia. This source is the only good one [16]. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alright so I'm going to begin this by stating that this article was created in translation of the Chinese version. Now The Chinese Wikipedia has its own reliable secondary sources list concerning video game articles. And yes, I'm well aware that the standards vary significantly between the two versions but some Chinese language sources are currently unavailable in the English Wikipedia as for example, references 8 and 41 are cited as a reliable source according to consensus. There are also entire secondary Chinese studies conducted on Zhongli including references 13 and 30, demonstrating notability in at least Chinese audiences. Furthermore, the character's popularity is well established by both English and Chinese reliable sources. Addressing the The only good sources were the criticism? but those doesn't really help argument, there are articles on the English Wikipedia that gained notability based on controversies or criticism involving either gameplay or characterization such as Tingle, Ashley Graham (GA), and The Outsider. Now you could make the argument that perhaps there should be a dedicated paragraph and a rewrite of the Zhongli Incident or that his reception section could use some work in terms of the overall writing and structure but that doesn't really warrant outright deletion/merging as per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Regardless, I'll look into finding further sources if other editors don't seem to find the current sourcing satisfactory enough. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either your rationale isn't really an "argument". That 3 articles you mentioned were being discussed by multiple sources, while this one doesn't really but the gameplay mostly; this falls under gamecruft. Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle!: Now this: Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one. I'm getting an impression that apparently, only English sources are of any apparent significance when last time I checked, foreign-language secondary sources count as being equally reliable as their English counterparts per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GLOBAL. By the way, I could also name problems with the sourcing in the articles I've cited as for example, references 26, 27, and 30 of The Outsider article at best only have passing mentions which is insignificant coverage, even if there are decent sources in the other two paragraphs as well as the development section. Regardless, I've since added two more paragraphs going over analysis of his characterization referenced by scholarly sources as well as fully replaced every unreliable source prior to nomination. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of all sources that I could find, probably this was only good one [17]. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that one is pretty good. Although WP:VG/S recommends to replace Siliconera sources with better ones, so it's definitely not enough on its own, much less being the best one in an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys only care about English reliable sources listed in WP:VG/S, I can add two more (Dot EsportsGamesRadar+) so we now have three. Multiple news article reporting the recent collab between Genshin Impact and Sanxingdui Museum (Zhongli as the collab character) can also prove notability, though they are in Chinese (Jiefang DailyWenhui BaoSichuan Daily). Supergrey1 (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dot itself isn't a good source that helps notability issue, plus the source just talks about his other name? That's it. On the other hand, its just a passing mentions at the GamesRadar source. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you said may be correct, but that doesn't violate WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Supergrey1 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Unless there is an established consensus regarding the verifiability on Chinese-language sources that remain absent on the English Wikipedia as of writing this, established consensus on the Chinese Wikipedia will do. In addition, can you clarify your point on This article reads like a FANDOM page considering most of the article is paraphrased from secondary sources? This isn't even mentioning the contents within the article itself scholarly sources are being used within the contents since there are currently around four which as Supergrey pointed out, qualifies for WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I've already highlighted two independent references, but I've since translated even further content that has been added from the Chinese Wikipedia as well as replacing any unreliable sources remaining within the article. At this point, there isn't really any good reason to delete this article as secondary coverage has just been further reinforced. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: The two Twitter sources and the two Forbes' Paul Tassi sources can also be replaced by other sources. I've replaced them on Chinese Wikipedia. Supergrey1 (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: Also, I added a popularity ranking by Japanese media in "Commercial reception," and added more comments on art designs in the first paragraph of "Critical reception." You haven't translated them yet. Supergrey1 (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After these improvements, now the page looks so much better. Keep. Supergrey1 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BespokeSynth

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. The only independent sources are this and this - from the Wikipedia article, but I don't think the latter should be considered reliable and the former just writes articles about all musical software, so I think BespokeSynth is there not because it stood out, but because website authors just needed content. I tried to find other independent reliable sources but couldn't. I believe it's not enough to merit a standalone article. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both sources Deltaspace42 found are independent and provide significant coverage, so the question is whether they are reliable sources. As far as I know, the reason why a person writes a review/material is generally not relevant to establishing source reliability. If a source just writes articles about all musical software, that does not mean the source is unreliable; that's like suggesting a game review company is an unreliable source because they only write game reviews. website authors just needed content suggests that the source is not reliable due to WP:ROUTINE, but these reviews are clearly more detailed than routine coverage (for example, I consider this as routine coverage since it provides only a short description and quote). This source, while shorter, also helps to establish notability: [18]. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darcyisverycute, yeah, I consider "cdm" source (the first source I provided) both independent and reliable. This source, which you provided, I missed (probably because I forgot to check with a space between "Bespoke" and "Synth"). I'll wait for someone else to give their opinion whether or not it is enough for WP:NSOFT and I will withdraw this nomination if they think it's enough. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:04, 5 January 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) Schminnte [talk to me] 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic

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

All passing mentions or refs to the cite itself. There are some hits on a WP:BEFORE but nothing that seems to meet WP:SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that Sputnik is reliable, but I'm not sure about notability. The sources in the article and the ones that you found are very short passing mentions, mostly in articles or books that summarize an album or band's reception with critics and fans, or which namecheck music review websites. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we are talking about a website which provides musical info and reviews, I think that it could also be important to know how much it is consulted, read and used as a source to determine its notability. I checked Sputnikmusic's web traffic with this free app [23] and compared it with some of the websites listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Sputnikmusic's traffic amounts to 42,5K monthly accesses, which is very low in comparison with AllMusic or Rolling Stone, in the same range of Rock Hard and Metal Storm's websites and much higher than Uncut, Rock Sound, The Wire and Metal Forces'. Sputnikmusic is cited in about 400 articles on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? Lewismaster (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? No. For example, jazzdisco.org is a reliable, and frequently cited source, but fails WP:NWEB Mach61 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the above. A lot of websites, books and articles are reliable sources but aren't notable themselves. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NPERIODICALS #4. I can find at least 30 scholarly books that cite this website. As I say every time a website like this is nominated, rarely do people write articles about niche, but reputable publications. That's why you always look for how often it is cited in its field, similar to WP:NPROFESSOR. Furthermore, I will always maintain that it is valuable for a reliable source used on hundreds of Wikipedia to have a page. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I agree with this !vote by Why? I Ask. It is evident (and likely incontrovertible) that Sputnikmusic is both highly cited and reputable, and invoking WP:NPERIODICALS is valid. Sputnikmusic is evidently not an inconsequential website, and removing this article from the encyclopedia is, in my view, detrimental to the project. Furthermore we are in the business of presuming notability; being highly cited in secondary reputable sources is a very good indication, and in this case far better than trying to base notability on users trying to do increasingly flawed google searches which may, or may not, find requisite evidence. ResonantDistortion 23:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:13, 10 January 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. Daniel (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Oil

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

This is a self-published book that does not appear to have been reviewed by any known outlets. Thenightaway (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Valid disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NS25

NS25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted, no citatons provided iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 11:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirelly Taylor

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

Last AfD in 2007. Article completely lacks any non-passing mention source. Googling reveals almost all hits are derived from her notable husband, Brian Tee. I am unable to find any independent coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 11:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Patkar

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

Fails to meet NPOL or GNG. State presidents/candidates of political parties must meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria for a standalone article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 11:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne City FC 8–1 Brisbane Roar FC

Melbourne City FC 8–1 Brisbane Roar FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. More than enough to mention it on a record list. Geschichte (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. The article is now located at Draft:Lucas Sant. North America1000 11:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Sant

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

Player has made one appearance in a cup game but does not yet have significant coverage, as far as I can see. It is a case of TOOSOON and the article should probably be draftified. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 10:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benoît Allauzen

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

Fails WP:GNG being the purchase manager for Swan at the Globe is not remotely notable? Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The best arguments below relative to our policies and guidelines are those for delete, and there is sufficient number of them to merit a consensus. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaNaDr

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

Non-notable service offered by a non-notable company. Sources are basically primary sources. Doesn't satisfy our WP:GNG at best. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I can't speak for other countries which MaNaDr operates in, it is certainly notable and widely used in Singapore. I have just found more third-party sources referencing MaNaDr and I will edit them into the page shortly. --Surrealityy (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajab Butt

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

Rejected at AFC multiple times, but repeatedly moved to main space, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the History of Women Philosophers and Scientists

Center for the History of Women Philosophers and Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources. Only cited sources are press releases, primary sources, or passing mentions. intforce (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The page has tagged problems with notability and verification. This is a good diagnosis for draftifying. But what makes me doubt it is that it has been live for this for clearly more than half a year now. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 00:58, 6 January 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 merge‎ to Mississippi College Collegians football, 1907–1909. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1907 Mississippi College Collegians football team

1907 Mississippi College Collegians football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability found for this one game season to meet the WP:NSEASONS. PROD was declined. Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the consensus to remove the article is clear, the views are split between whether to delete or merge. That is worthy of further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque TV

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. I tried clicking "The official homepage" link on the bottom of the article, but the site doesn't mention any "Arabesque". Was previously nominated for AfD but speedy kept because nominator gave the wrong reason. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakkur (Bengaluru) Inscriptions

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

Not ready for mainspace. not have any source Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has many relevant citations and strong sources added. This article is extremely notable as it shares accurate and verifiable information about historic Jakkur. Therefore, this article must be retained and should not deleted. Anusha.Morching (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @asilvering, the article has improved. The lede still requires attention but there is no need to keep this discussion open and it can be closed as keep/withdrawn. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 5 January 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! 03:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArX

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

No independent sources indicating any notability of this version control system. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lineker Machado

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

Poorly sourced BLP on Indian men's footballer which fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2012, 2014, 2019, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 10:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Sagar

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

Does not pass the criteria of notability as a musician. Has not received any award as an artist by national or state government. No references and thumbnail articles Md Joni Hossain (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so we can hear from more editors about this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Receiving an award from a national or state government is not a prerequisite for an article's general notability. Coverage in reliable sources is the measure of notability for Wikipedia. At a minimum, there are multiple (at least two; a more familiar editor might argue more) sources of non-trivial coverage establishing the article topic as a subject. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kumar (Computational biologist)

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

Doubt on subject's notability. Looks like a resume. References are mostly his own publications. Nothing found to satisfy WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 05:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Iman

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

Previously moved to draft and recreated within 20 minutes. Draft:Abu Iman. Does not pass GNG. WP:Before has some hits for Abu Iman but not sure if they are the same person as the subject. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human Age

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

Non-notable defunct European browser game with a page that largely hasn't changed in over a decade. The sourcelist is comprised of the browser game's site and other host sites with no reliable secondary sources or evidence of actual commentary on the game. Lack of publisher information and the potential for WP:NONENG sources to be out there makes it difficult to find anything on this title for a WP:BEFORE. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. North America1000 10:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha OPL

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

WP:GNG — does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article appears to comprise large amounts of original research, most of which is of interest only to a niche audience rather than a general readership. The few existing citations comprise unreliable sources such as YouTube videos, GitHub, Google documents and random PDFs.

Popcornfud (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. Popcornfud (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sourcing down to this level of granularity found. could be some OR. Sourcing used in the article isn't helpful for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Yamaha products per nom. Man, synth-heads have published a lot of cruft over the years. Mach61 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell me about it. It's an area that doesn't get a lot of attention from editors and sometimes it's difficult to get consensus to remove things even when it's unsourced or unlikely to ever be sourced. Popcornfud (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we already have articles for Yamaha YMF7xx, Yamaha YM2413, Yamaha Y8950 and Yamaha YMF278, all of which belong to this family. That's not a reason to keep this--or any--article, of course. But seeing as this article is better written than any of the individual device ones, wouldn't it make more sense to merge the device pages into this article, assuming we can find sourcing for any of them? While I'm no synth-head myself, Bluefoxicy and others have done some great work collecting information on what I see as a potentially encyclopedic topic that would be a good merge target for a handful of pages that are likely not sustainable as a standalone article. Would it make sense to Draftify while those familiar with the subject work on merging and sourcing? This may be a bigger project than a single AfD can handle. I'd appreciate feedback from those more familiar with this topic. Owen× ☎ 15:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification cannot overcome a lack of notability. Mach61 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. My suggestion was based on the assumption that sources establishing notability can be found at least for some of the devices in this family, allowing for the merged article to meet NPRODUCT. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't really speak too much as to notability as per Wikipedia standards (I have pretty much no idea what I'm doing here...) but I do feel I should at least point out that two parts in this series - the YM3812/OPL2 and YMF262/OPL3 - were some of the most popular sound chips in personal computers in the early-to-mid 1990s. The article already mentions a sentence or two about that but I'm not sure it gets across just how popular these parts were. I'd (on a personal level, not as a comment related to policy) be sad to see what I consider to be a quite useful article on some formerly very popular products go away. 2604:2D80:C805:0:12A:7E6B:41A1:3C00 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's definitely useful and interesting stuff in the article — but it's the kind of thing that should be documented on a different wiki or personal blog, not Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the ideal(?) case would probably be having the article expanded on to more resemble something like MOS Technology 6581, which I'll certainly agree it currently doesn't. Is this something you see as a valid route, if someone (or a few people) were to put in the effort to do so? (note: I am the same user as the one ending in :41A1:3C00, my IP address just changed... I should create an account sometime) 173.29.158.71 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a great idea. As I said, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be of much use on the authoring side, but if you need a helping hand on the administrative side, don't hesitate to give me a shout. And yes, please create an account. Justifiably or not, more weight is given to the opinions and edits of registered users. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. North America1000 10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Medical and Dental Association

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. Only sources listed are the company's website. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although participants here argue to Keep this article, we need some independent, secondary sources supplying SIGCOV to verify at least some information in this article. That's the standard for all article subjects, even the most worthy organizations. Otherwise, this Wikipedia article is just an extension of the company's website.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment -- The question should be "Is it notable?" (I say YES) and "Is there a potential redirect target?", to which I would answer that there is not. In response to the relisting comment, I would suggest that even passing references may verify the truth of a website. It there is nothing else, a brief description with a link to the website should probably be acceptable, in this case listing national member organisations for which WP has articles (and are presumably notable). This makes it more than a mere extension of the organisation's website. It may technically be a company, but is in essence a membership association. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Three relists in I'm not seeing a consensus here. The arguments to delete are stronger; sources counting WP:GNG via WP:SIGCOV have not been explicitly listed. However, I don't believe the imbalance is strong enough for a delete verdict; there are sources in the article that aren't so obviously disqualified that I can discount them as a closer, and no comprehensive source analysis was provided of these either. No prejudice to speedy renomination, but I suggest that those advocating to keep make an effort to find more sources that may render this unnecessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MKSK

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

PR for non notable local business. Coverage from local paper and business journal falls short of Audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Gosh I disagree about this AfD, particularly as one of the few Columbus/Ohio-based editors. MKSK is incredibly influencial, particularly in Central Ohio. Their work is the foundation of what has made the city what it is today, having worked on most city planning projects in Columbus. Columbus is also the largest city in Ohio, so the media sourced would meet the regional reqs in WP:AUD. As I mentioned earlier, it is incredibly unfortunate that the firm co-opted the article for their PR purposes but that is not a reason to delete. 9H48F (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep it appears to meet GNG. I've seen less notable companies kept for sketchier corporate biographies. I saw a bunch of sources on a cursory look through that aren't in the article from publications of local and regional interest. I do not know much about Columbus, Ohio, but since this firm is getting huge city contracts to build public stuff, they get some press. Andre🚐 07:12, 15 December 2023 (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, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: clearly filled with reliable sources that are about the firm itself and not about its projects – more notability than most architecture firms get. Sure there might be a few sentences that could be reworked to be less PR-speak but in terms of notability this passes. Dan • ✉ 21:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. I am unable to locate any references that do not rely entirely on information provided in this manner. HighKing++ 14:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No references provide the trifecta of IS, RS and SIGCOV, so fails notability policies. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 4 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Vrba (bobsledder)

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

This AfD might be the same issue as I did with Michal Vacek back in late November. Google search results mix him with the late politician of the same name, but nothing much to say about this bobsleigh athlete. Corresponding articles in other languages are mostly poorly-sourced and a stub (I checked and translated them), especially Czech Wikipedia, which would help copy over to the English article otherwise. Even as a legit adult, we probably have to let him figure out what he wants to do with his life, then create a full biography if he receives significant coverage in reliable sources. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alekh Kumar Parida

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

Not yet meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:MUSICBIO. Macbeejack ☎ 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No policy but I thought I'd mention that today I've been reviewing lots of newly created articles about people involved in music or film who have no real credits to their name. This was another article almost identical to others I've come across, created by Historical Heritages of Bihar and others by Koilwaar1. (like Sean David Lowe). Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review Wasilatlovekesy's proposal of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Tech Security Commission

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

Sources are mostly press releases, primary sources, or passing mentions. There's no significant independent and sustained coverage, making this probably not notable for a standalone article, although mentions to it in articles like Keith J. Krach would be due. MarioGom (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont. clpo13(talk) 19:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's a repeat of information at George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont and consists solely of genealogical information. Fails WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, should not be deleted. the Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen is a historical person and is of interest for a online bibliotheca like Wikipedia. --92.76.102.53 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 92.76.102.53 - I shall also add that there are short sections ("Early life" and "Later life") pertaining to her life. Scribbie (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added extra information prior to her early life and later life so it isn’t a copy of George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Most of it is about her and her family. Therefore doesn’t fit wp:NOTGENEALOGY. My other account reason : Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen's article should definitely stay on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. Firstly, she holds historical significance as a prominent figure in the 18th century, with her marriage and connections to other ruling houses. Additionally, her article is mostly cited, providing reliable sources for readers to explore further. Preserving her legacy ensures that future generations can learn about her accomplishments and the broader historical context. YorkDr (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: while it's no longer a clear-cut case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY, the early life content is still very brief and uncited. With more citations and a cleaned-up or removed "marriage and issue" section it might pass notability Dan • ✉ 01:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: beyond the case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. She was a historical princess, unlike today's seemingly insignificant or powerless constitutional monarchy. If you have a penchant for article deletion, please AfD them. Thanks. 85.229.188.50 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of 2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A) DrKay (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO. Notability is not inherited and nothing indicates this individual was notable in themselves or did anything of significance. The article is part genealogy (much of it unsourced) and part royaltycruft memorial.  // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen's article should definitely stay on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. Firstly, she holds historical significance as a prominent figure in the 18th century, with her marriage and connections to other ruling houses. Additionally, her article is mostly cited, providing reliable sources for readers to explore further. Preserving her legacy ensures that future generations can learn about her accomplishments and the broader historical context. Azarctic (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This user has already declared above, under a different user name (his third in as many weeks). DrKay (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looking for policy-oriented contributions which have been missing on the 'keep' side so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. However if someone believes they can further address and re-scope, happy to provide as a draft. Star Mississippi 00:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turfan volcano

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

The Global Volcanism Program does no longer have an entry for this volcano and the only other source (doi:10.1016/S1367-9120(02)00081-0) is extremely undetailed. I notice that this old source explicitly says that identifying a volcano there was an error. The existence of this volcano was already questioned on the talk page, the source proffered there is dead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this shouldn't be here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly an error. –dlthewave ☎ 20:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking at satellite imagery for the coordinates given by the Global Volcanism Program source doesn't show anything to indicate there is any sort of "volcano" located at or near the given coordinates. Searching it up doesn't yield any useful results either other than briefly mentioning the supposed 1120 eruption. Unless there is solid proof to prove otherwise that there (pretty unlikely) was a volcano there at some point, then this article should be deleted. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Volcanoguy 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are historical reports of a volcano, and this area has a history of volcanic activity[42]. Even if modern geologists might disagree (a big if?) it's not like this is a hoax. I've added a cite to an 8th century poem by frontier poet Cen Shen. Oblivy (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That source talks about volcanic activity in the Permian more than 200 million years ago, a completely different topic than historical volcanic activity. We can't interpret that poem or undetailed historical sources as referring to volcanic activity; the Turpan-Hami basin knows coal seam fires (e.g this source) so unless a source distinguishes between the two scenarios, we can't know that the poem refers to volcanic eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the source is not one showing active volcanic activity, although I am led to believe[43] that there is an active fault line in that area. But the fact that you may doubt whether the historic record is accurate doesn't negate that there are historic sources which refer to volcanoes (the poem refers to a volcano near Jiaohe, not necessarily an eruption). You aren't going to be able to go back and interrogate historical sources from 1000 years ago - we have what we have.

        The article on Dauvergne, cited in the nomination, is a commentary on another traveler's report which notes reports of volcanoes in the area, although it focuses on European claims rather than Chinese ones.

        May I suggest that the way to resolve this is not to delete the article, but to contextualize the claim that there was once an active volcano in the area? Oblivy (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        • I figure that there is active faulting there, but a fault is still a completely different thing than a volcano. The problem with contextualizing is that that poem is quite undetailed and a primary source, anyway. Kind of hard to call that WP:SIGCOV. I also wonder if the translation of the poem, Chinese word to the English word "volcano", is accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dauvergne article is relatively significant coverage since it identifies the reports of volcanoes and then attempts to debunk. There's also evidence of an earlier claim (unfortunately can't access the article now, but it's what's being debunked).

            火山 is volcano. The poem title includes 郡在火山脚, "county at the foot of the volcano", and it includes the verse 火山赤崔巍 which is something like "red, towering volcano". Oblivy (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            • Sure? Because to me and also to Dr. Regel that looks like a reference to Flaming Mountains, which aren't volcanic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes? 火山 means volcano (see [44] "Volcanoes are geological structures with special shapes formed when high-temperature magma and related gases and debris erupt from the planet's crust in the magma chamber under the earth's surface.")

                I suppose it's possible that there was some lexical drift from Tang Dynasty Chinese, but more likely the Regel interpretation is an orientalist gloss (split the characters, 海豚 becomes "sea pig" instead of "dolphin"). Somewhere I have a 19th century Chinese-English dictionary, but I'd have to search for it. Oblivy (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

              • Comment I have expanded the article based on the above discussion, to include Humboldt's work and the controversies over the existence of the volcano. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not very strong ones, though - Earth's landscape : an encyclopedia of the world's geographic features has no page number given and gbtimes article that gives no indication of its own source and is from a non-specialist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fair enough, I just wanted to show the article could be made into something that discusses the discussion of its existence, rather than the more controversial question of whether historical accounts were correct. The GB times one isn't mine. Oblivy (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited the article to describe the controversy over the existence of the volcano. As it stands now, it no longer a claim that a volcano actually exists, but a documentation of earlier claims and later rebuttals to those claims. The original rationale no longer applies, and the prior votes are based on a version of the article that no longer exists. Thanks to @Jo-Jo Eumerus for their valuable input.
  • Either this article should survive deletion on grounds of WP:HEY or it should be relisted to generate further discussion. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm. Here I worry about the fact that we are talking about a volcano close to Jiaohe ruins (SW from Turfan) and also about the Flaming Mountains (NE of Turfan). Are we sure the sources are talking about the same area? It's these kinds of little incongruencies that are a problem in articles with only-barely WP:SIGCOV sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at a map, Jiaohe is about 10km down the road from modern-day Turpan. Both sit along the base of the Tian Shan. The "Flaming Mountain" moniker is applied to a long strip of the Tianshan, probably more than 100km wide (and the person who suggested the conflation of the two was writing about 10,000km away in London). Oblivy (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine if the updated article scope is enough to negate the deletion arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 02:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ditto for last relisting. It would be helpful if editors who voted "Delete" reviewed the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As implied above, I still favour deletion. These little contradictions make me question whether the sources are talking about one topic. I don't know of any place where the Permian is considered "prehistoric"; usually in both science and colloquial "prehistoric" means when humans were around but didn't write down anything yet. Still think WP:SIGCOV is not met, with passing mentions and a primary source (the poem). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; independent assessment of the recent changes made would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • So we have some old pems; Alexander von Humboldt saying there was a volcano in 1849; an 1881 source saying that Humboldt was wrong, and misled by the old poems, based upon the reports of Johann Albert von Regel who lived in China; and 21st century geologists also deciding that this is an error. And on that we are basing an article about a Turfan volcano. Why are we propagating this error 170 years later, and going back to the poems that have been contradicted for 140 years? Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that delete remains clearly the right outcome here. Trojan efforts have been made to save it, but they are misguided, and we don't want a geography article about a non-existent structure. The fact that early writers made mistakes about it isn't sufficient justification. Nor is this a notable hoax, which might have formed a rationale for keeping it. It's time to delete this now, the topic has been well explored. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This fails per the nom. UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 8 January 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. clpo13(talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Muneza

Christopher Muneza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete as an obviously promotional article. would've been speedied as WP:G11 if it wasn't put up for AfD.

Pfomma (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to garner more opinions here. I might have suggested a PROD prior to trying AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you had looked at the page history, which is the least any AFD discussion participant should do, you would have seen that the article was tagged CSD G7 at least twice, both times declined. The reasons are in the edit summaries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Football in France. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French football club owners

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

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. List serves little purpose, is completely unsourced, and poorly upkept. Owners are already listed on each club article, which is sufficient. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. clpo13(talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxometrical society

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

Non notable University Society. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More links to further independent sources have now been added.
Is it enough to have the nomination for deletion now removed? Skullbound (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All you've done is bombarded it with more passing mentions, So no, not enough. And it also raises questions about your own use of oxo shite. Sources you've provided simply do not directly support the text you have written. Are you looking for a degree yourself? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agreed with duffbeerforme, article is just peppered with trivial mentions. If someone could find just two or three good in-depth references, they could bulldoze this whole thing and rewrite an informative article. But a dozen or more passing mentions do not add up to information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus that this article should be Kept although it's sourcing could be improved (as is the case with many articles). Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Voorhees

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

He's had executive roles at a number of crypto-related companies and exchanges but only Shapeshift looks notable, and it doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG either. Probably either delete or redirect to Shapeshift. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are a number of high quality RS on the article (Bloomberg, New Yorker, Venturebeat, etc) and mentioned a lot of times in Google books search. Article lacks depth, but doesnt seem to lack notability and thus meets WP:GNG. For example this FT piece quotes him 3x in relation to his views on cryptocurrency, without mention of shapeshift. Business Insider lists him as #3 crypto influencer. I added a couple of sources to the article to add evidence of notability. Plenty of mainstream coverage here separate from this former (and now defunct) firm shapeshift. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like either passing mentions in articles about other topics or quotes from him, neither of which help him to meet GNG. Are there any RSes that talk about him at length (especially if they aren't about ShapeShift)? BuySomeApples (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found one pretty easily after you asked. Have you done a google search for this subject prior to nomination? I simply just searched for "eric voorhees biography" and got this from forbes (a biographical and apparently in depth piece). Assuming you have done a basic google search prior to this nomination, the problem with these article subjects in cryptocurrency is that they generate so much press that is low quality, it somewhat drowns out the RS, and forbes staff writer is RS btw. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better! Thank you for finding that, if you can replace some of the passing mentions with more sources like that then I think this might work. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for depth, he was one of the personalities featured in the film The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin, as well as two other films, according to IMDB . In looking around for more RS (and depth), I have found and added some other content that also would not make sense with a merge to Shapeshift, such as the SatoshiDice content (article subject founded satoshi dice which accounted for half of bitcoin volume at one point in time), nor the article subjects recent notable comments (picked up in books & press) relating to his opposition for crypto-regulation (comments were made in reaction to Sam Bankman-Fried's comments). As for notability the article checks all the boxes, featured in films (as himself), mentioned in books published large publishers, WSJ, FT, Forbes, Ars Technica, Reuters, New Yorker, etc all in varying levels of depth of coverage. Google search replies with 1M+ results (of course many are not RS). Its an article for improvement issue, not a GNG issue and the article will improve over time, like most do generally speaking. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find something other than WP:IMDB for the movies? Right now the only great source imo is Forbes. FT is decent depth but is about shapshift. WSJ is a single mention and Ars Technica, Reuters, and New Yorker have 1 quote each so not sigcov. The VentureBeat article about SatoshiDice raising money is a maybe. The book refs don't have page numbers so I'm not sure if they have in depth coverage of him or quotes/single mentions like some of the articles. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont have to see sigcov from every source, we will see it in some and not others. As Moem-Meom (talk · contribs) says below, there is also sigcov in some wsj sources as well. When I added the books to the article, I also added the url of the book mention. For example in this diff you will see in edit summary I added a link to google books, to make it easier to WP:V. An example that we are facing a blue sky issue is this source in Fortune, where the source's title is "Sam Bankman-Fried, Erik Voorhees and the battle for crypto’s soul", and this tells us that the opinion of Voorhees is sufficiently notable to Fortune's readers (as compared to SBF's opinion) that they write a piece on it. Nothing about shapeshift here, only about positions on current events (in that case crypto regulation). As for sources, for the movie Banking on Bitcoin, I found the article subject's name also listed at appletv and at primevideo and the movie Bitcoin Beyond the Bubble is in tvguide. I didnt add those to the article, as they might not be RS. Your characterizations of passing mention and single quotes doesnt address the fact that the subject appears in three movies as himself, nor does it address that he is commonly quoted on current event issues unrelated to shapeshift, and probably is inaccurate in itself as both Moem-Moem and I are disputing your passing mention assertions as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you have corrected those issues in your recent series of edits. You also removed the text stating " 126,315 bitcoins, equivalent to $11.5 million at the time" and changed to simply the USD value, in this diff. I am guessing this is one of the largest bitcoin transactions in history, so why you would think that is trivia? An editor above mentioned the article subject's notability was in part tied to making such as large transaction, while you feel it is trivia. Seems a large gulf in opinions, maybe you might explain. While it is possible that this article (like many) has had COI edits at some point in time, I do not presently see any editors doing that, and for purposes of avoidance of doubt (in case your comment was directed towards me or someone else in this thread), I have no COI with the article subject, his past employers, etc. Do you see any other problems with the sourcing? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to look at the subject objectively: the guy is an early adopter of Bitcoin, pioneered the space and has become a reference in the world of cryptocurrency. We can clean up sources that we feel are promotional or trivial, but in my opinion only with the pieces on Wall Street Journal and Forbes the subject's notability is clearly established through WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that saying he "pioneered the space" is "objective", we may have other problems. I do not accept that these sourcing problems have been fixed. Look at what sources are actually saying. Do not write WP:BACKWARDS. Do not fill-in promotional first-hand knowledge about "the world of cryptocurrency". That doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
What an editor guesses is important is irrelevant. The specific quantity of bitcoin is not automatically relevant to this biography, and context comes from sources, not editors. For all sources, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so the mere existence of these sources is not enough to claim GNG. If you want to use these sources to claim notability, you have to summarize what they actually say. I notice that the WSJ source is the first in the article, but nowhere in the article is money laundering even mentioned. This tells us the article is not being cited for facts, it's being used to prop-up the article. I assume whoever cited that source has full access to it. That editors should summarize what it actually says about Voorhees. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please advise the specific sourcing problems so we can address them. The money laundering claim is interesting as well, do we have something for that? I read the SEC fine was for the shares offering (I think the subject was selling shares in satoshidice, but dont quote me on that). Was he also cited for money laundering? I dont have a paywall account right now for wsj. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf @Grayfell I have a paywall to WSJ and there is a significant and great coverage with many critics of course. I've added this to the lead paragraph of the page, including references to money laundering, North Korean hackers, etc. Hope the page is balanced now. Moem-Meom (talk) 10:44, 3 January 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! 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchinotsu No. 37

Kuchinotsu No. 37 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I made this article in January of 2021 when I knew less about editing Wikipedia. The only reliable sources I can find about this cultivar are mentions in articles about other cultivars. It was tagged for notability in September this year. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DCsansei, Are you sure that 'Tsunonozomi' is the same as Kuchinotsu No.37? I may withdraw this AfD nomination. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:58, 4 January 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 merge‎ to Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018). Daniel (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Custom Night

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

This game zero critic reviews on Metacritic, and doesn't have enough articles substantially covering it to substitute the lack of critic reviews with WP:THREE or WP:SUSTAINED in any way. I simply do not think this game is notable enough on its own, and is likely better off merged into the series' article. NegativeMP1 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Budhiram Tudu

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

Poorly sourced BLP on Indian men's footballer which fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2010, 2011, 2016, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Delfin

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

Local politician that fails WP:NPOL. Also the source that was cited in the article is an incomplete external wiki entry. --Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_29&oldid=1193747902"