Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 13	November 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Prisiadki. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Squat dance

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

Nuke. The article is complete bullshit synthesized from verifiable pieces, so that to a Westerner it looks plausible. But any Ukrainian or Russian person will at once see it is full of nonsense, and the stack of hatnotes says it all. This is not to say that the pictures do display "squat dancing", but it is not a separate dance, but a dance move present in numerous Ukrainian and Russian dances, and it does deserve its own article. But not this one. Repeating, this text must be nuked, at least because the refs cited are either non-verifiable or dubious, or outright hilarious, such as this one. - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I started writing a normal article on the dance move, "Prisiadki". You are welcome to help, but please do not use/copy dubious references from Squat dance. If they were of any value, I would have used them myself. - Altenmann >talk 06:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've taken a much better route than the two people before you who attempted to rewrite the article, but I think that people would not have objected to your rewrite, and an accompanying rename, as they did to those other two rewrites, which were qualitatively different. That said, clearly the right answer is just redirecting, as even an OUP encyclopaedia (Cohen 1998, p. 357) harv error: no target: CITEREFCohen1998 (help) uses the informal name "Russian squat dance" for "prisiadka", and I found several other university press books that employ the informal names, "prisiadku (squat dance)" in one from MQUP (apparently Marina Swoboda's translation note on Pavel Svinyin's original), for example. I can tease Drmies a bit by pointing out that we have good academic sources (Leingang 2021, p. 66) harv error: no target: CITEREFLeingang2021 (help) for an in popular culture sentence: The impossibility of the protagonist performing a prisiadka in a barynya was apparently the climax of Boris Polevoi's (Boris Polevoy) The Story of a Real Man. The book is culture, Drmies, and it was popular. Leingang 2021, pp. 63–68 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLeingang2021 (help) looks like a source for that dangling hyperlink, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cohen, Selma Jeanne, ed. (1998). International Encyclopedia of Dance. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195123081.
- Leingang, Oxane (2021). "Stalin's Samovars: Disabled Veterans in (Post-)Soviet Literature". In Grayson, Erik; Scheurer, Maren (eds.). Amputation in Literature and Film: Artificial Limbs, Prosthetic Relations, and the Semiotics of "Loss". Literary Disability Studies. Springer Nature. pp. 61–83. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74377-2_4. ISBN 9783030743772.
  - There is no such thing as "Russian squat dance", there is a dance move prisiadki (used in many dances), which term has no proper native English equivalent, just as reel or kathakali have no native Russian words. Meaning whoever uses the term "RSqD" has low choreographic expertise. It is like calling Suzie Q a dance. - Altenmann >talk 11:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. Thanks for the hint to Boris Polevoy; incorporated. - Altenmann >talk 11:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Uncle G, there's actually a real uncle who's an expert at that type of dancing: Uncle Sandro. You should read about his death-defying move that lands him right in front of Uncle Joe. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion about disposition of the text within this article, but if prisiadki replaces it, then squat dance absolutely should redirect there. It is elitist snobbery to simply dismiss actual usage of the term. older ≠ wiser 12:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What a weird remark. The term "squat dance" is used multiple times in my new artricel Prisiadki. - Altenmann >talk 14:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  What's weird? My comment said nothing whatsoever about whether 'squat dance' was mentioned in the prisiadki article. Only that squat dance should redirect to that article rather than simple deletion as you have proposed. older ≠ wiser 16:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The weird part is about "elitist snobbery", which I read as an insult, but I am thick-skinned, so I shrugged it off as "weird". And I propose to "nuke", not "simple deletion". As far as I understand, articles are nuked to start afresh, because they are not worth salvaging even in history. Every single sentence in it is a bullshit. I can start spelling it for you: "The squat dance (Ukrainian: гопак, hopák." - hell no. "eastern Slavic folk dance" - it is not dance. "arose from military Cossack traditions" - nonsense without any proof, spread recently by various pseudocossack movements. "originated in regions of today's Ukraine" - no evidence of exclusivity. "is also used to some degree in Indian and Hmong dances" - no more that Lindy Hop is used in Circassian dances which have lots of hopping. And so on. - Altenmann >talk 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You describe difference without significant distintion between 'nuke' and 'delete'. In either case the article is gone and you said nothing about replacing with a redirect. In fact, you appear to question the very validity of the term. older ≠ wiser 17:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct. I do not question its occasional usage, but I looked long and hard to find any choreographer expert in Russian/Ukrainian dance to have in-depth discussion of this dance move similar to the Russian sources I cited, so that I can use their term. I don't want further proliferation of ignorance via Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 17:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That sounds a lot like elitist snobbery to me. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's how Wikipedia works: WP:RS, you know. I'd like to have standards of WP:MEDRS everywhere besides pokemon and pornstars. - Altenmann >talk 18:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Except Wikiedia very fortunately is usually opposed to linguistic prescriptivism. There is a huge difference between the disinformation and conspiracy theories that MEDRS topics have to combat and how non-Russia/non-Ukranian people commonly refer to this dance move. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      usually opposed to linguistic prescriptivism Huh? I was talking about WP:RS, for God's sake. - Altenmann >talk 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You sounded like you wanted to educate the ignoramuses who use the term "squat dance" that they were talking nonsense and to void the existence of not only the current badly written article, but also negate any redirection of the term. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was saying that the whole article is nonsense and gave an ample example here. I didnt say anything about negating redirection. - Altenmann >talk 21:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      
      This discussion is non-constructive.
      
      Various terms have been used,[1] [updated link] and all unambiguous ones should redirect to the new article. But I do see that several books discuss Kiowa squat dance. —Michael Z. 18:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      several books discuss Kiowa squat dance - that's correct, I saw that as well. - Altenmann >talk 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Thank you. —Michael Z. 18:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Yeah, I asked ChatGPT about the Squat dance and it had never heard of a Squat dance before. Alexysun (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even try to pull this monstrocity into editing Wikipedia. It is good as a Turing test and echo chamber (media) amplifier, but hardly a source of wisdom.- Altenmann >talk 17:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've read through this entire discussion but it's not clear to me what the proposed Redirect target article is. Is it Prisiadki? I suggest turning down the heat in the discussion and being absolutely clear about what outcome you are seeking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with the nominator's assessment of the sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to redirect to Prisiadki. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not WP:FIXIT? Typically when an article on a notable topic is bad and someone wants to start over, they just fix the article rather than start a new one and request deletion of the old one? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the order was opposite. First I requested its deletion, because the grossly misleading article was a disservice for readers. Then out of curiosity I started looking for good sources and to my surprize I found them in Russian dance manuals. - Altenmann >talk 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Prisiadki per nominator's work. The new one seems to be a good article. Llajwa (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prisiadki as per discussion above. The new article looks great! --Kammerer55 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom: the very premise of this article is nonsense and as it stands it borders on misinformation as it appears to equate two distinct Russian and Ukrainian dances. Akakievich (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prisiadki. I am neutral on whether deletion is necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to India–Russia relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Russia, New Delhi

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

Subject fails GNG. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes failed, because you cannot redirect to a page which does not mention the subject. At the very least you have to merge the referenced info into the target page. - Altenmann >talk 04:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Russia. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of ambassadors of Russia to India as WP:NOPAGE, Alternative target India–Russia relations. —siro χ o 05:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus on a target would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Embassies are generally considered notable enough to warrant their own articles and many such articles exist. Dazzling4 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dazzling4: I'm not aware of any guideline where embassies are given the presumption of notability, but I could be entirely wrong – could you point me to where this is stated? If this isn't actually a guideline, please note that the existence of other similar articles does not confer notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Tollens (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough this is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I change my suggestion to Delete Dazzling4 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article contains nontrivial information, reasonably sourced. - Altenmann >talk 04:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with India–Russia relations: While not appearing to meet GNG, there's certainly usable material in the article. List of ambassadors of Russia to India seems to me to not be the correct merge target here, as an embassy is not an ambassador. Tollens (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with India–Russia relations as AtD, generally agree with Tollens, I think GNG is iffy here, but I do believe the merge will result in a better target and more exposure of the material. If in the future it improves into a stand alone article, the history will be preserved. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan Zokaei

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. The attempted notability claim is that he won a minor special-interest award for his writing a decade ago, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to hand him a "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie -- but the only source being cited here at all is a piece of his own writing being circularly cited to metaverify its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes: we need WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him, in third-party reliable sources (media, books, etc.) independent of himself, not just technical verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. subject has a fair number of citations in business/supply chain-related topics. [2] —siro χ o 03:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NPROF : While Zokaei is cited in some reputable publications, these references are largely tangential or self-written. Additionally, the vast majority seem to reference only a single publication by Zokaei. Together, I believe these facts would broadly rule out criteria 1 of WP:NPROF, the only criteria I can see possibly applying. KJGinger (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BLP requires strong sourcing and none is in the article. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the individual) directly and indepth. [3] shows they are cited, but none of these address the subject diretly and indepth. If someone finds SIGCOV about the subject ping me. // Timothy :: talk 16:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Petgrave

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

I can see this being a very toxic discussion and I will probably be harassed by IPs/new users for suggesting the deletion of this page but Petgrave is notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E) and that is currently a highly problematic event to write about. The article was created on the assumption that Petgrave is the man arrested, which however likely is unconfirmed and breaches WP:SUSPECT. Adam Johnson played in the NHL so he had a minor element of notability before the tragedy. Petgrave only played minor league in North America and there was very little written about his career before this event happened, so he is not notable as a sportsman. If he is, then level the page up with sources about his North American career, dating from before October 2023. The event for which he is known is under investigation and due process applies, there is no WP:DEADLINE. A person being known for the death of another person does not merit an own article. When/if Petgrave features in documentaries or is portrayed in many books and films about the death on the ice, then we can say that "his role was both substantial and well documented" which is an exception for WP:BLP1E. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually working on adding his career stats and when I went to post it I lost everything because of the deletion notice. I understand why the article is up for deletion, in fact I was trying to improve the article before it gets deleted. Sadly, I lost all my edits. Thank you for posting the reasons for deletion, as I was unaware of them prior to editing the article. Winni134 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the others saying that Petgrave is notable, and I do think we should keep the page but we should remove claims that he was arrested for Johnson's death until we have confirmation from a reliable source. Snickerdoodle12 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He's notable for both his amount of penalties as well as his involvement in the injury, which is pretty rare for the sport of hockey. I haven't found any confirmation that Petgrave was the one arrested, but NewsNation has been reported that the person arrested is "a professional hockey player", which seems to insinuate that the person arrested is indeed Petgrave. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 13:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This player plays for a notable team in a notable league. Over 15 years, he has played for a number of notable teams in notable leagues. Many players in these teams are notable for just playing in these teams, so is he. He was notable before the incident with Adam Johnson. Here are just some sources about him (many featuring him) from before the 2023 incident:

I started this page. Topjur01 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, England, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ UNLESS a rehaul of the page gets done, in which I will support. I researched Matt Petgrave earlier when the incident was still fresh on everyone's minds and I believe along with the sources in the article and other sources I have found online that Petgrave is notable, passes WP:GNG and deserves an article. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to vote Keep now after improvements to the article. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Soft Oppose: I was a little mixed at first but after some consideration, Petgrave meets notability criteria as a professional athlete who has played at least one game in the top professional sports league of a nation, and undeniably even moreso through his incident with Adam Johnson. But this article needs an overhaul and to be greatly expanded to better represent the subject matter, as it stands currently this is not an article up to the standards of Wikipedia.Spilia4 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact he does not meet notability criteria. Simple participation standards were deprecated from NSPORTS nearly two years ago, and playing top-flight matches in any sport meets no current criterion. Ravenswing 02:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was a first-team all-star in the ECHL and is listed on the article 2018–19 ECHL season. That seems to meet Criteria #2 at WP:NHOCKEY. Minnemeeples (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree with Kline. I think that Petgrave definitely possesses some amount of notability, but the article fails to really reflect that in a meaningful way. An overhaul is definitely necessary. EytanMelech (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ - The subject is notable but the article needs a lot of work before it should be moved to the mainspace.LM2000 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck my previous !vote, it's okay to Keep now. The recent work done on the article is sufficient enough.LM2000 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep'''. The subject was featured in The Atlantic (now part of the New York Times), BBC, Pro Hockey News, The Star, NBC Sports, Daily Express, etc. Clearly passes the notability standard. Regarding the draftifying vs. keeping, the page has been improved within the last few hours after most evaluators suggested it be moved to draftspace. It seems that it is quickly getting better. It is not perfect but it is good enough. Keep. Tiberius1978 (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with above, doesn't need a whole lot of work to become a decent article. Definitely passes notability standards. Marleeashton (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant policy is WP:NHOCKEY. cagliost (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, I did not think that this would be the AfD to bring me back to WIkipedia, kicking and screaming, but here I am. Disregarding witty remarks, Petgrave's notable, mainly due to playing in notable leagues, and has had many mentions of him outside of the Adam Johnson incident, as mentioned above in Topjur01's comment. IncompA 15:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found another source before the Adam Johnson incident. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0f5g03w IncompA 16:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person was a notable hockey player prior to the incident. The article needs a chance for expansion not quick deletion. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough significant coverage. Giant Snowman 19:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a key participant in a very newsworthy event. 156.57.11.183 (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough SIGCOV sources unrelated to the BLP1E event to pass GNG. As an aside remember that NHOCKEY is just that the subject is likely to be notable, per question #2 at the top of WP:NSPORTS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Textbook case of an article created after a notable incident in which a person was involved in, but that person isn't necessarily just notable for one event. The Slovak and Czech Extraliga, as well as the EIHL, are top-level leagues. Given the glut of sports articles out there, I think Petgrave would have cleared notability even before this incident. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Even besides the Johnson incident, the Czech Extraliga is a significant-enough league to justify the article. The Kip 19:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a kind-of - reverse - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, this article complements the deceased's and gives a quick insight into professional players in their non-native countries, useful for drive-by readers.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legitimately, probably the most well known NHL player in the world right now. There is not going to be any end to coverage on him in sight either.KatoKungLee (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even outside of the Johnson incident, Petgrave is well sourced for a sports article and there is no reason as to why his article should suddenly be deleted. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Debts

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. Significant coverage from reliable sources about the film is scarce, if existent at all. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
A lot of SIGCOV on the film actually exists, my bad. Keep. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SICGOV from reliable sources is existent and I added some to the page. See for yourself. Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has at least two reviews, easily meets WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. and then Redirect to Sudhan#History and particulars. Redirect page protected from editing by new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Jassi Khan

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

Recreated not too long after a recent AfD where the consensus was to delete; clearly fails WP:GNG. Patient Zero^talk 23:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also the redirects are making this confusing. Dazzling4 (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - as earlier. Can the admins also full-protect the redirect so that it doesn't get edited again? There are powerful tribal affinities and folklores at play. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this title has already been redirected to Sudhan#History and particulars, meaning that either this AfD is moot or the redirect needs to be to allow completion of the AfD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly moot. There are frequent attempts to turn it into a full-fledged page. Even now, the redirect page has content, if you notice. It was deleted, but people inserted some content again after the AfD was filed. The redirect page needs to be full-protected or at least EC-protected given that this topic falls under WP:ARBIPA. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect and protect. If a properly sourced article ever develops at the target, it can go through AfC. // Timothy :: talk 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Given that this is a subtopic of an obviously valid article on a broader topic, the relevant question here isn't just notability, it is whether a standalone article is necessary. In this respect the arguments to keep are somewhat weaker; I only see one strong argument and very little supporting evidence that this would unbalance the proposed target or make it too long. There are also persuasive arguments that the present length is unnecessarily inflated by details that may be unnecessary. I also find the arguments for outright deletion weak, however; there is obviously valid source material here. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yakhini massacre

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

This engagement appears to have little to no independent notability outside of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The name "Yakhini/Yachini" is not very present in recent reports, let alone in reference to a "Yakhini massacre" in any English sources, as suggested by the current title. Meanwhile, the basic facts of the page seem largely unsupported. The one source citing the deaths at this location appears to fail verification, or at least there are no mentions of casualties in the source that is cited in-line for it (unless the details are embedded in the Hebrew-language video but not reflected on page). Of the other sources, all of them from Ynet, one is basically just a security camera clip, another has a mere trivial mention of Yachini/Yakhini, and then there is an interview with a community leader who was in Thailand at the time of the attack. The other coverage out there on the web then seems to largely mirror this, with a few other stories focused on the CCTV footage, but no comprehensive coverage of the events, and no final word on casualties. Overall, I'm struggling to see much of a case here for the WP:GNG of this event as a standalone page outside of the main 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, and I would propose deletion and the merging of any verifiable content into the parent. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Abo Yemen ✉ 09:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete limited amount of coverage found when I search, most seem to be in context of the larger battle/attack that took place at the same time. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above argument. Jebiguess (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge verifiable content into 2023 Hamas attack on Israel per the wise words of User:Iskandar323. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note there has been English sourced media on this page, CNN, TOI, The Guardian, Haaretz mention it. More detail availed in Hebrew sources (Naturally). A simple google search will find you these sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

available* correction of spelling mistake Homerethegreat (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that article has been rewritten in NPOV wiki voice with new refs ~~for now~~. I’m reviewing the current Hebrew articles and looking if there are any English RS. As I’ve said elsewhere, notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge on the combat. If 7 civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties. If I am unable to find additional verification I will change my !vote as per OP.

Update:

- I have summarized the current refs, replaced one English version of a Hebrew ynet article with its English counterpart from ynet, found that one ref doesn’t support its text but does relate to Yakhini, found 3 other English refs which relate to Yakhani

- I will be putting my final list of refs on the article talk page in the next 10m for others to review (and add to if they can)

- I will then rewrite (in my sandbox) citing correctly and in wiki NPOV voice. This will take several hours Ayenaee (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final update

- I have completed the rewrite of the article which is now live. I believe it meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. I have given more detail on the article’s talk page on what I’ve changed and why I believe the tags can be removed. Ayenaee (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that it is still not WP:V (or basically factually accurate). For instance, the page confuses Nir Hajabi, who was on holiday in Baku at the time (and who lives in Kissufim but whose sons lives at the moshav), with Ariel Zahavi, who was in Thailand. These two individuals are being mixed up on page. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re correct about the locations thanks for noting this. I’ve made the change. The individuals weren’t mixed up, I erroneously changed Thaland to Baku, Azerbaijan (for Zahavi), when I just wanted to add the country to Baku (for Hajabi). Are there any other factual inconsistencies you’ve noticed? Ayenaee (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~2023 Israel-Hamas war~~ 2023 Hamas attack on Israel - This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. There is no way to know if this particular event will meet WP:NEVENT's WP:EFFECT or WP:PERSISTENCE criteria, and it absolutely cannot pass WP:DIVERSE or WP:GEOSCOPE at this stage. I'd argue it is highly unlikely to ever do so on current evidence, but I'd have no trouble with this article being recreated in a year or two if this particular massacre stands out amongst the plethora of atrocities (on both sides) in this horrific and senseless war. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note the article 2023 Israel-Hamas war is currently labeled as WP:TOOLONG, therefore this doesn't seem like a good option. Marokwitz (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For closer: If merge is not accepted as consensus, I am comfortable with Delete. This does not meet the minimum requirements found in WP:NEVENT (see original comment above for policy specifics where I think this subject is lacking). Perhaps in a few years, when we see if this is referenced in secondary sources (of which there are none currently) as more than a footnote in this conflict? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has changed dramatically since the nomination. The word massacre refers to large-scale and deliberate targeting of civilians, and 7 solid citations (excluding one from New York Post) are sufficient for meeting the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. RS coverage both in USA and Israel meets the criteria of WP:DIVERSE. WP:DEPTH is established, for example by the Kan 13 reference . Marokwitz (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a significant massacre and as Marokwitz points out there are sufficient reliable sources for this massacre. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 7 deaths does not mean it's notable when over 1,000 other people were killed in other communities. Something like the Re'im music festival massacre is notable as the civilian deaths were over 200. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC) After reading some of the other comments, and looking at GNG, I'm taking a neutral stance on this one. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:25, 7 November 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) 15:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CFORK, parent article too large to contain much more material. Valid content fork. No opinion on naming. nableezy - 16:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested target was 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, not the war one. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, changing to merge. nableezy - 18:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that article has been rewritten. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This doesn't make sense. How many articles should we create about this conflict? Dl.thinker (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination was conducted too early as it didn't allow for more sources to emerge to allow the article to be written using reliable sources. This is technically a current event and I can see through the page history that editors are working on improving the article using reliable sources as they emerge. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Sorry but seven people in this context is low. We have like a dozen of articles about the murder of civilians that took place on 7 October. This is just a massive duplication of articles, we can easily cover this in another article. The article isn't even that significantly better after its rewrite, it's still short. The rewrite should be evidence that this article can not achieve much more lenght. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:NOTABILITY requires a certain amount of deaths ? At most, this is an argument for renaming the article, not for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to above target; otherwise delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia often has articles about events that occur within events, the sources in the article show this meets notability requirements for a stand alone, merging the articles would only make the target larger and this breaks a subtopic is a logical way per SUMMARYSTYLE. The article continues to show improvement (not that AfD should be for cleanup). If a merge is done, hopefully its more than a awkward copy paste merge. // Timothy :: talk 05:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not an issue here. All these massacres are notable. There is no case for WP:NOT either, including in the intro. Together these eliminate delete as an option. Merge could have been an option but the text is not repetitive versus the parent, or generic, and not short either. It's a regular WP:SPINOFF of a larger attack and an article about an event that is also notable in its own right. Hence keep is the only conclusion that makes any sense. gidonb (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a diverse number of reliable sources and the massacre is notable like all the other massacres in Israel during the October invasion by Hamas, and since the article has been rewritten in a better format, keep is a better option.

RowanJ LP2 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for Indian Government Websites

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

No third-party sources were found. Sohom (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Internet, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is only to government websites/documents; basically explaining a technical standard to be followed. Nothing found outside of primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have given enough References to validate the source.

Like ADA in USA, AODA in Canada, there are accessibility laws in every country and lately India comes with GIGW. Though I didn't rate myself as an expert in Wikipedia but I am expert in the subject matter.

I can help improve the quality if this the reason of deletion but this article is absolutely necessary in Wikipedia. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 49.37.39.142 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivaji Mitra (I assume that is your correct account) I will point out that neithier ADA or AODA have articles of their own. Also, we need third party sources to support each individual article, if there are not third party sources, it will be deleted. Regards Sohom (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly you mean by 3rd party, do check W3C Accessibility for India Page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/india/

Laws are mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility

ADA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

AODA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility_for_Ontarians_with_Disabilities_Act,_2005

Philippines = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility_initiatives_in_the_Philippines

UK = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

etc..

3rd Party references are given. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The W3CAI source is a good start, but you need atleast 3 third-party (i.e. not affliated with the Indian government) sources that discuss this guideline in depth. Notice how, for example the american law article has literal columns of references to other people, education institutions, supreme court cases, newspapers and such talking about the Disability guidelines. To show that GIGW is eligible for a article, you will need to show that these guidelines have been talked about in depth in India (or even outside India). Sohom (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added 12 Authentic "Sources" to support the article. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivaji Mitra Those look like really good sources. I will look at them over this week and withdraw my nom if they fullfill the notability, which I think they will. I would just suggest using the sources as part of the page instead of as a list at the end. -- Sohom (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources mentioned in discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 The ADA and AODA are enshrined laws in their respective jurisdictions, and the article title and content should reflect requirements specifically based on accessibility rather than voluntary guidelines which seem to be focused on corporate and design needs first (nobody outside standards orgs cares about quality focus or lifecycle management), rather than the user. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge summary into Web_accessibility#India. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to support a Merge/Redirect as well, on reviewing the sources I do see a lot of mentions (which is a good start) but not a lot of significant coverage of specifically these guidelines. Sohom (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Do Association of Bengal

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

Non of the sources given show notability, the TimesOfIndia and Zee24Ghanta articles are all press releases and IndiaBlooms and GetBengal are just generally considered very very unreliable sources. A BEFORE search does not bring up anything new. Sohom (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of this organization. There are sources describing karate events they're sponsoring, but that's what karate orgs do. There are some sources talking about awards given the organization's president, but that's not significant coverage of the organization. Articles about a 6 year old black belt don't make the org WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. This is the notable karate organisation of Bengal.Arnoldwera (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant independent coverage of the subject. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This profile is of a Karate organization which doesn't seems promotional and is notable to be on wikipedia. This is also affiliated to Karate India Organisation. Ramrathore1 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first AfD for both of the keep voters and they've both made about 20 edits apiece. I would suggest that these editors take a look at WP:NOT. Not being promotional does not guarantee WP notability nor do passing mentions, even from reliable sources. WP notability is also not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED from other people or organizations and is not obtained by simply claiming notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources don't really discuss anything unusual about the KAB; most of the news is about its president becoming an A-class referee or on their younger classes (which do not affect KAB's notability a whit) and about their online "E-kata" courses and competitions (which barely says anything about it, being laser-focused on the courses). Ramrathorel and Arnoldwera's "Keep" arguments are also noticeably flimsy WP:ILIKEIT arguments with no basis in policy or anything much that's defensible.

Another thing I have to note is that most of the citations are to Times of India, an outlet we consider to be pretty dodgy at best, and so I am generally inclined to lend those sources far less weight from a notability standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I found numerous news articles from reliable website which passes WP:BASIC. On the basis of WP:THREE. Katy Williamson (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to link them? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Williamson Although WP:THREE is an essay, not a policy, many agree with it. However, it helps if you actually specify the three sources you claim show notability. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While keep has a numerical majority, the majority of keep !votes in this discussion have no grounding in policy, whereas the deletes are well-reasoned. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Archibald

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a retired judge and current president of his own mediation/arbitration consultancy, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. As always, judges can have articles that properly reference them over WP:GNG, but are not "inherently" notable enough that they would be automatically entitled to have articles just for existing -- but the referencing here is based almost entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as his "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations and pieces of his own writing about other things. There's just one citation to a piece of analytical content in a third-party magazine independent of the subject, and it's just a review of an e-book -- so that one hit is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source on offer, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that his authorship of several published books would have qualified towards the notability requirement. When researching him, I had came across the mediation/arbitration bit, which I thought worthy of including. If it seems "semi-advertorialized", it can be removed, obviously. That was not my intention. I can work to improve the article if that keeps it from being deleted. Yeehaw45 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merely writing books doesn't make a person notable. We need some indication that the books are significant or influential. Looking for book reviews would be a good place to start. A good rule of thumb is that if a person has written multiple books, and each of them has received multiple reviews, that's probably enough to justify an article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by XOReaster, it's not the writing of books that establishes notability, it's the amount of media coverage that can be shown to establish the significance of said books. Notability isn't "did stuff" per se; it hinges on the amount of third-party analysis the stuff has or hasn't received in media. That is, you don't make a writer notable by sourcing his books to themselves, you make a writer notable by sourcing his books to reviews of the books in newspapers, magazines, literary or academic or law journals, and the like, to show that their significance has been externally validated by somebody other than himself. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think there may enough to pass WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I believe it worthy of keeping. -Yeehaw45 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis and what sourcing? Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of WP:Author and with the newly sourced information regarding his decision during the PC leadership election. -Yeehaw45 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is an author and it appears their is slightly enough news content to support the article. BigWalrus75 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article pass the notability as an author but need a little bit clean up to properly reference some parts.Bro-Koji (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, BigWalrus75 and Bro-Koji, how did you happen to stumble upon this AFD discussion? You haven't been editing for very long. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It might seem that there is a consensus to Keep this article but I have doubts about some of the opinions offered and seek more participation for veteran AFD editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any non-primary sources with significant coverage of the subject (including the recently added ones, which are only about a decision he made, not the judge himself). The single review of a book he contributed to is not enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I too have concerns with some opinions above. Tollens (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are your concerns? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No concerns at all with yours (although I disagree); my concern is the same as Liz's raised above. Tollens (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There are not enough independent reliable sources to support a BLP, in my opinion. The only ones in the article that looked good enough to me were [4] which is a book review with very little biographical coverage and [5] which has just a brief mention in the context of receiving an award, but it does say "He is recognized for his outstanding legal writing that has made large contributions to the practice of law." Which is a reasonable claim to notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2020 Montgomery Bowl. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Bowl

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

A one year name change for the Fenway Bowl. Can be sufficiently covered in that article and doesn't need its own page Esolo5002 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good-faith proposal, but the Montgomery Bowl was not a name change of the Fenway Bowl, and does not belong in that article. It was created by organizers as a one-off bowl to fill a gap in the schedule of 2020–21 NCAA football bowl games—the description, as appears in the article, was a "substitute of the Fenway Bowl for this season only" (emphasis added by me). This article is not an outlier, as there are other examples of articles about bowl games that were only played once (e.g. Charity Bowl), and articles about bowl games that never got past the proposal phase (e.g. Haka Bowl). Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Montgomery Bowl One season aberration game and unlikely to have future editions (not that Montgomery will never host a bowl again but it won't just be named after the city). Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single article seems reasonable, although my initial thought would be to merge the other way (place game detail currently found in 2020 Montgomery Bowl into Montgomery Bowl). Montgomery does have an active bowl, Camellia Bowl (2014–present), which is no small part of how the city ended up with the one-off bowl in question. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 Montgomery Bowl: we don't need two articles on a one-off bowl game, but the article on that one specific installment is a much better and less surprising redirect target than the game it was a "substitute" for. (And for the record, Montgomery is a current bowl game host: the Camellia Bowl has, since 2014, been played in the same stadium that also hosted the 2020 Montgomery Bowl, so there were two bowl games there in the 2020 season.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have no particular objection to any "consolidated" article being titled at simply Montgomery Bowl, though that might be more suited to a subsequent RM discussion than something that directly results from this AfD discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the suggested target, as a WP:ATD. No independent notability for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 Famous Toastery Bowl. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Toastery Bowl

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

A one year name change for the Bahamas Bowl. Can be suffciently covered in that article and doesn't need its own page. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2023 Famous Toastery Bowl Duplicative article and creator was warned several times that this individual article about the temporary bowl wasn't and will not be needed. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Famous Toastery Bowl: we don't need two articles on a one-off bowl game, but the article on the "specific" installment (if there is such a concept for a one-off) is a much better and less surprising redirect target than the game it was a "substitute" for. (Whether or not any combined article actually needs to have "2023" in it is another matter that is probably more suited to a subsequent RM than AfD.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Opposed, create as new article This is not a one-year name change. That would imply that there is new sponsorship, but in this case, there is a new location since it's not being played in the Bahamas. For historical sake, the Montgomery Bowl and Frisco Football Classic were both created this decade as one-year substitutions and they both have their own pages, info, records and logos. This is a new game with a new primary sponsor, albeit for a year, while the Bahamas Bowl is on hiatus for a year. And that's if the renovations proceed as planned..

Roberto221 (talk)

Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument. This article must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 11:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion (with caveat). The press release here clearly indicates this is a different bowl than the Bahamas Bowl, as the Bahamas Bowl "will not be held". While tempting to treat it as a "relocated" Bahamas Bowl, there is no indication that that is the case. That said, a single article for a substitute bowl (rather than a "bowl" article and a "2023" article) seems reasonable. If the bowl turns into more than a one-off (WP:CRYSTAL) season-specific articles can be structured. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that early reports (last month) about the Bahamas Bowl not being played did treat the change of venue as a relocation—example here. However, ESPN now (mid-November) uses different language, as above. While we could speculate about why ESPN changed positioning, the latest content shows clear distinction between Bahamas Bowl and Famous Toastery Bowl. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2023 Famous Toastery Bowl due to these two articles currently being redundant. Reliable sources in the article indicate this will be a single game. If there is a subsequent Famous Toastery Bowl, then the redirect can be removed, but per WP:CRYSTAL, we can not assume this would be the case. The fact there is no indication that that [being a “relocated” Bahamas Bowl] is the case is not relevant to the fact that there is currently only one Famous Toastery Bowl with no expectation of a future game. Frank Anchor 11:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Famous Toastery Bowl. Duplicate article that isn't needed. If there is a future game with the same title, the redirect can be removed at that time, but no earlier. Let'srun (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khorlo

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

WP:NOTDICT —Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Buddhism, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a dictionary definition, and searching online I couldn't find anything that would or could expand it beyond that. There are plenty of references for things that are named after or incorporate the word Khorlo but little about the word itself as a word. I suspect if there were any in-depth sources about this Tibetan word it would be in Tibetan (which I do not speak), however the Tibetan Wikipedia entry for the word is similarly sparse and unsourced. - Aoidh (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bree Boyce

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

Non-notable beauty pageant winner that fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage exists, see this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of sources presented to counter the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1 - full article on her, 2 - another full article on her, 3 - another full article on her. All 3 of these were already included in the article. Looks like an easy keep in addition to Ejgreen77's sources. KatoKungLee (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant independent media coverage. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auxano Capital

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

Press releases do not make a notable subject. Fails WP:NORG Sohom (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A new editor's first article, about a venture capital firm. Note that a previous instance was draftified and rejected at AfC. The references provided and the coverage found on searches are routine announcement-based coverage of fundraising and investments, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I could soft-delete, would prefer an established consensus here (either way) rather than something that can be flipped at REFUND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I can find that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (Actually, "no consensus" comes closest to describing the outcome in Wikipedia-speak, but in fact there is a clear consensus that this is pretty well right on the keep/delete borderline.) JBW (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azanti

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

Some sources and some success, but I couldn't find enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Billboard is minimal coverage. Given the flowery language used in the Nigerian sources, I'd prefer one more good source to push this over the top. This pops up [6] but I haven't confirmed if it's the same person or not. I'll review it later, or if someone else wants to, please feel free. Almost notable... Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I debated sending this to draft or keeping it, I think it's at notability, just barely. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 23 October 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) 16:52, 31 October 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) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's close, but appears just notable enough to retain. Uhai (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute

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

Highly promotional article about a firearms standards development organization (i.e., an industry-run trade group that sets voluntary standards) that fails NCORP. Almost all of the sources cited in the article are primary sources. The only sources I've been able to uncover that discuss the organization in-depth are from trade or gun hobbyist publications, which fails ORGIND (particularly here, where the trade publications are also run by organizations that have ties to the firearms manufacturing industry). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Firearms, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SAAMI documents are widely used, e.g. at the UN, see https://unece.org/search_content_unece?keyword=saami or https://meetings.unoda.org/meeting/62086/documents. It's unlikely you'll uncover in depth discussion from third parties about most standards bodies, so let's be ready to remove International Electrotechnical Commission too. Standard bodies are important because of the impact they have on everyday life, not because the NY Times wrote about them... Also a standard bodies run by industry actors is nothing out of the ordinary, see for example Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards JidGom (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many standards bodies have received significant coverage (see, e.g., [7] and [8]). If a standards body has not received significant coverage, it is not notable per NCORP; organizations are not inherently notable. I only pointed out that SDOs are industry-run because it's relevant to whether any sources are sufficiently independent. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JidGom: If you modify your comment after someone has already replied, please indicate what parts have been edited using strikethroughs and insertions per WP:TALK#REVISE. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I entirely missed that you already answered as I was editing. I added URLs referencing the organisation activity that are not from trade rags. You'll hopefully agree that the UN references pass the significant, independent, reliable and secondary criteria... The main issue here is that trade rags seem to be much better at SEO than more important organization like ANSI or the UN, making it look like all coverage is from industry rags... JidGom (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the links you've provided meet NCORP because they're search results, and the first search result from the first link is a submission by SAAMI, which is obviously not independent. If you'd like me to evaluate sources that you think establish notability, please provide your three best sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/consultativeStatusSummary.do?profileCode=2718 as reference WRT UN ECOSOC status and that's as canonical as it can gets JidGom (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by canonical, but the fact that one organization (org A) has status with another, notable organization (org B) does not make org A notable under NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added 5 references to the article. For lack of a better place, I put them in the "References" section although they are not inline citations; I'm sure this violates the Manual of Style in multiple ways but there you go.

National Institute of Justice (United States Department of Justice), Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Trace, Center for American Progress, The Washington Post.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article from The Trace could establish notability. The Center for American Progress piece is largely a summary of that source, so I wouldn't count it towards establishing notability. The rest of the sources do not provide significant coverage of the organization in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate number of non primary sources have been added. 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) JidGom (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well many primary sources have been added, that was the issue from the start. Somehow when I pointed that International Electrotechnical Commission had exactly the same issues the tag added is asking for primary sources not deletion... IMHO this passes the criteria defined in WP:NGO. JidGom (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the IEC page for relying on too many primary sources. Primary sources do not establish notability. Additionally, WP:NGO does not establish presumptive notability, but rather notes that particular non-profits are usually notable. NGO still requires citation to several independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the five refs I added to the article 7 November as noted above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it is sufficiently referenced. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [9] and [10] combine to meet GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Antonio mayoral election

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

Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. There is no announcement of when the election will take place (including the month), and almost the entire article content is based on an article that is an opinion. There is practically no factual content in the article. SanAnMan (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Politics. SanAnMan (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 United States elections#Local elections. Definitely does not warrant an article of it's own (yet), but redirecting is a good WP:ATD here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its established practice for San Antonio mayoral elections and elections in general to have the upcoming election an article. We had a similar deletion discussion in 2019 that resulted in keep. Also I don't think it's fair to characterize this election as not scheduled. RS is reporting this election will happen in May 2025. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 19:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussion seems to be following the pattern of the author deleting things from San Antonio pages out of whole cloth, which indicates that author likely has a personal agenda. In this case, per state law of Texas, there are only TWO uniform election dates per year in a municipality. In a home rule city, such is the case of San Antonio, the municipal election date for city council and mayor is set by City Charter and cannot be changed without state legislative authorization AND a charter change vote of the public. The city of San Antonio municipal election date for mayor and city council set by the City Charter passed in 1952 is the FIRST SATURDAY OF MAY IN ODD NUMBER YEARS. The next general election date for mayor is, therefore, May 4, 2025. Just because it's nightfall doesn't mean that you can't declare that morning is coming. USER 17:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.27.196 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep [moving to neutral] - First off, I am really confused by the sudden spate of AfDs for future elections. Policy is clear and unambiguous: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place (emphasis added), and elections have often been used as a exemplars. As for the particular article, the sourcing is weak and lacks WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DEPTH. I slid over to the Keep side simply because policy assumes notability if it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. I cannot see a situation where this election wouldn't merit an article afterwards. That said, it wouldn't take much to sway me towards Estar8806's viewpoint on a merge. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great point as well. However, the one thing that pushed me towards !voting to redirect is the line (in WP:FUTUREEVENT) "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.". There just doesn't appear to be "well documented" speculation here, yet. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is speculation in reliable sourcing and statements by potential/declared candidates. Seems like enough to be "well documented" to me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
estar8806 pretty much echos my main argument here. There's no doubt that the election will happen, it's the fact that right now there's not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant a stand-alone article. The article currently only has two citations (both from the same author) one of which is nothing but a collection of conjecture about who might and might not run. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My already-weak Keep has eroded away, but am still not convinced by the Delete !votes. Is it honestly worth going through this when we know that we will need an article in a few months? I am 100% convinced that it was WP:TOOSOON to create the article, but now it seems we are WP:RUSHing to delete it to no real point or purpose. It feels... officious in the negative sense. Does deleting it now and recreating later really improve the encyclopaedia? If so, I am not seeing it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was randomly looking through dates on other city mayoral races. The earlier the better seems to be the going trend. Used to be that such articles were sometimes done after the election was over. But that's changed. See 2025 New York City mayoral election, or 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election (created 2020) in for instance. I'm thinking it's easier to be accurate and up-to-date if done as one thing or another happens. Not necessarily as accurate if it's all put together in the closing weeks or months of an election. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely because of WP:NOTBURO. This election is going to happen and it's the next one. I do not see how it is a good use of anyone's time trying to delete the article when it will just need to be recreated within a year or so. I don't think SIGCOV is a good argument for deletion, as this will clearly be a notable election when it happens. Number 5 7 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57 + satisfies WP:CRYSTAL (a notable and certain future event), one minute of searching shows multiple reliable sources discussing the election: Manny Pelaez already hinting at 2025 mayoral run, San Antonio mayoral contenders emerge ahead of 2025 race, Greg Brockhouse wants back in the political arena, passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Mark Smith

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page needs improvement (with sources like this or this. No lead roles and various minor roles but some significant roles in notable films, which makes him meet WP:NACTOR ("The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") in my view. His performances have received some coverage (in the LAT) (or this in the NYT) (that is not in-depth, but the guidelines does not require them for WP:NACTOR) The fact that he had his obituary in The Chicago Tribune, in Variety , in the LAT, and in the Hollywood Reporter seals the deal, I think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC) (NB-Those sources have now been added to the page)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to Lionel Mark Smith's extensive filmography, including roles in films like "Galaxina" and "Homicide" and TV appearances on shows such as "Seinfeld" and "NYPD Blue," I see notability. However, some sources should have been added, as one IMDB source doesn't help much. Also, great "keep" comment above I agree with! --BoraVoro (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BoraVoro; meets WP:NACTOR. Owen× ☎ 00:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Delhi Leaders Declaration

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

It fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING. Declarations/communique/joint statements are a usual occurrence at the end of any bilateral or multilateral summit. This declaration had nothing significant to merit a standalone article. It's basically also a WP:CFORK of 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like Cape Town Open Education Declaration, UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Environment, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like

Cape Town Open Education Declaration

,

UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration

. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. You can't simply remove an article by citing just because it has few lines I will remove. The article is NOTABLE.

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable

Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Delhi. Star Mississippi 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about the summit and be done with it; what we have is barely a few lines. This could be covered in a final paragraph in the article about the summit. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like

Cape Town Open Education Declaration

,

UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration

. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. You can't simply remove an article by citing just because it has few lines I will remove. The article is NOTABLE.

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable

Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Summary section into the main 2023 G20 New Delhi summit, where the content naturally belongs. No need for this pointless fork. Owen× ☎ 15:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. This does not have enough significant secondary commentaries in reliable sources that could justify a standalone article. The Poetic Frame ^{(talk with me)} 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic–Ukraine relations

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

Another bilateral article with actual minimal evidence of actual bilateral relations like trade, state visits, migration or agreements. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing or finding any evidence of WP:SIGCOV of this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joementum

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

Non-notable phrase. Recent usage has no connection to Lieberman's original usage, but the current President having the same first name. Equivocation of terms separated by 14-17 years MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the notability guidelines by virtue of having been documented in WP:RS used in (1) 2004, (2) 2006, (3) 2008, (4) 2020, and (5) 2023. The fact that the last two usages were for a different Joe than for the usages in 2004 and 2006 is irrelevant, as there is a clear connection. The 2008 usage is a mockery of the 2004 usage. Where is Matt? (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. What we have here is a portmanteau of "Joe" and "momentum" that can be applied to more than one Joe. This is a clear delete under NOTDICT which is policy. Regarding the citations given in the article, yes, these are all reliable but they are all WP:PRIMARY. See particularly WP:PRIMARYNEWS if there is any doubt about that (there shouldn't be). Per WP:BASIC, Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. So there is no notability for this term, and NOTDICT rules it out anyway. An acceptable WP:ATD would be to redirect to Joe Lieberman. Merge is not required as the mergeable content is already on that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sirfurboy said it better and more efficiently than I can. I would quibble on whether there is any reason to redir, however, but that idea doesn't bother me so much as it seems like a waste of time. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Éva Balázs

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

Subject fails WP:NOLY and WP:GNG. The historian of the same name is probably more notable than this Olympian and I think we can wait for obituaries. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Hungary. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hu.Wikipedia has a lot more content and lists a bunch of sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More content without claim of notability for ANYBIO, but not much more for sources, certainly not enough for GNG. Hu-wiki is a good place for a Hungarian athlete. Why would we replicate that here? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't analyzed all the sources yet, but Hu-wiki is a good place for a Hungarian athlete. Why would we replicate that here? What? Are you saying that we should only have English athletes here and that non-Englishmen are irrelevant to this Wikipedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. I've not previously encountered the argument that the Wikipedia of a person's native language is the "good place" for an article but questioning why we would "replicate" it in En-Wikipedia. It's always been my understanding that, if a person is not notable, they shouldn't have an article on any of our Wikipedias, but if they are notable, they may qualify for an article on En-wikipedia as well. Also not sure I agree that the Hu-wiki article lacks a claim to notability -- it states that Balázs won more than 60 ~~skiing~~ championships and cites a number of sources. Do we have any Hungarian-speaking editors who could examine the sources cited in the Hu-wiki article (here) to assess whether they rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that while the subject is not notable here, perhaps the bar is low enough on hu-wiki. It is easier for hu-wiki to evaluate Hungarian-language sources, which even if translated would still be LOCAL coverage. NOLY requires medaling, which this athlete didn't do. As I don't follow sports I cannot tell if winning these skiing championships are at all significant. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing / failing NOLY / NSPORT is wholly irrelevant in modern (i.e. since March 2022) times – all that matters is GNG / NBASIC – now, taking a translation of the Hungarian sources I get:

    Péter Fügedy: 75 years in red and blue, Népszava, 1986. ISBN 963 322 376 8
    Péter Fügedy: Our winners, our champions, WERK Nyomdaipari és Könyvkiadó Kereskedő Kft., é. n.
    B. N. - National Sport, January 8, 1992.
    Monspart Sarolta: B. É. - Orienteering, 1992
    Péter Kozák: Éva Balázs, Sándorné Őzse skier, orienteer, physical education teacher

    More information

    Who's who in Hungarian sports life? Written and edited by Peter Kozak. Szekszárd, Babits, 1994.
    Réva's New Lexicon. Main editor. Colleague István Tarsoly. Szekszárd, Babits, 1996-.
    Sports encyclopedia. Main editor. László Nádori. Bp., Sport, 1985-1986.
    New Hungarian biographical lexicon. Main editor. László Markó. Bp., Hungarian Book Club.
    Vasas Hírek - Monspart Sarolta 70.

Those sources are biographical encyclopedias about notable Hungarians – that is not "local" coverage (or are you trying to say all coverage from one's native country is local – because if that's the case, well, you're wrong). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered, in addition to the several likely significant books above, there's a paywalled Hungarian newspaper archive (that allows you to see previews) by the name of Arcanum.com – taking a look for their results of "Balázs Éva" síelő (trans. Éva Balázs skier) there's plenty of coverage listed (111 direct matches) including what seems to be entries providing direct coverage of our subject, e.g. among others, the Who's who has what appears to be at least two pages of coverage (p. 222-223 at least?), there seems to be an article on Balazs in the December 12, 1988 edition of Népsport (years after her career), and Magyar Ifjúság 1973 apparently has a story titled (google trans.) The Hungarian cross-country queen Éva Balázs: A Hungarian world champion – that's almost certainly significant coverage. This has all the appearances of a notable athlete. I'm suggesting Keep. @Cbl62 and Chris troutman: BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a website that provides a quote from one of the books discussing Balazs – it has over 500 words; SIGCOV. This should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She won 36 national titles. I think it's safe to assume more coverage exists. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is a stub. But she is a multi national competition winner. Plus Olympic appearance is enough for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic appearance is not enough for inclusion, just so you know, the policy changed over a year ago. No comment on the other stuff though. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Brevard County, Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brevard County Social Services

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

Nothing particularly notable about this topic on its own. Sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Education, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Brevard County, Florida. Appears to have been spun off from that article back when it was pretty bloated. It would benefit from unsourced statements and WP:FARTs being removed in the process. Zsinj^Talk 00:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I considered creating a redirect after article deletion but found that Elisa Jordana is only mentioned once on Cobra Starship, on a list of members but not in the body of the article explaining her contribution to the musical group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Jordana

AfDs for this article:

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

Vanity page created by a single-purpose account likely related to the subject. Subject has been mentioned (briefly) in one MTV website article, and the rest of the sources are extremely weak - either primary (howardstern.com) or entertainment websites I've never heard of (Classicalite) and none of them demonstrate significant coverage. Previous AfD results were "no consensus" (except for the 1st, which was "redirect") and littered with votes from brand-new accounts and IP addresses. Propose deletion or redirect to Cobra Starship Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is all about her "relationship" (if you can call it that) with Andy Dyck. This is about all I can find on her alone [11]. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's been in AfD FIVE times, the last four taking place since 2017 AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED, I'm not sure what the issue is. SALT and move on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Radio, Television, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It needs some meat on it's proverbial bones, but with the sources it has, it should be fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that the nominator did remove a LOT of the article, going so far as to remove sources from The Connecticut Post (a newspaper based out of Bridgeport, CT), OK! Magazine (an international publication on par with People), and WDFX-TV (an American TV station), but left the TMRZoo and Classicalite (which was complained about) sites. The page has plenty of significant coverage that was removed by OP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some context:

The CT Post article did not mention Elisa Jordana. It was an article about Artie Lange, completely unrelated to the topic of this article. So I removed it.

I removed the sentence about Jordana being slated to appear on Vanderpump Rules because she never appeared on Vanderpump Rules. As this was the only source I could see even linking her to that show, I removed the sentence per WP:CRYSTAL, and its associated source. It was non-news and an attempt to link the subject to a notable TV show that she never appeared on.

To say I removed a WDFX-TV source is a real stretch. The actual URL is dead, and if you look at the archived version, it's actually a PR piece distributed by Dendy Media - a place where one can pay to have a story "published", and make it seem like a legitimate story. It isn't. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that Nexstar dressed PR pieces as news stories.....but it makes sense considering Nexstar. :) Anyway, fair enough. That answers my major concerns. To be honest, I haven't listened to Stern since he left broadcast radio, never watched/listened to Artie Lange, and know nothing about Vanderpump Rules. So that part, I'll take your word for. :) Retracting my !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator seems to have a vendetta against Elisa, heavily editing her page, removing sections/sources this past week from it, and now trying to have it deleted. The page has already been approved 4 times through this process. The fact that she was in the platinum selling band Cobra Starship (MTV Article on her), did some solo music (Apple Music Profile), was a part of a huge storyline on the The Howard Stern Show for close to 5 years (Featured on The Howard Stern Show's official website), wrote for some big online publications like XOJane (proof) and Marie Claire (proof), starred in a Fuse TV reality TV show (Redemption Song, source), had an appearance in a film like Sharknado 4 (proof), her engagement being widely publicized (source 1) (source 2) (source 3) (source 4), etc. all warrants a legitimate Wikipedia page. LeafK1 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— LeafK1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and I would recommend striking the baseless accusation of vendetta _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just my opinion, but this vote comes from an account that appears, based on LeafK1's edits and edit summaries, to have a close connection to the subject. The same account has made this baseless accusation before, against another editor. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, as FZ uncovered, in his note adding the COI tag to the article, the original author of this article is also the creator of a picture used in the article, which also appears on the subject's Facebook page, which raises serious COI issues regarding their votes to Keep at this series of AFDs. Banks Irk (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are fine and well, but we need reliable sources talking about them. Of your four sources for the engagement, three we can't use as they aren't reliable sources we recognize and the Toronto Sun is iffy. The imdb link for Sharknado is user-generated content, so not reliable. Howard Stern COULD perhaps be notable, but the show's website would be a primary source, so we can't use it. An Apple Music profile is also not acceptable; you'll want to review here [12] for what we're looking for.

Again, it's not that the person does or doesn't have a vendetta against someone, we need sourcing that talks about it. We have articles on everything from cat memes to the death camps during WW2; with proper sourcing (as explained above), just about anything can have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And not having made American edits is moot, we edit anything and everything here; I've created articles on bridges in the Czech Republic to fashion influencers in South Korea, all from the comfort of my home in Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"

Delete and Salt Once unreliable sources are excluded, and once misrepresented sources that do not even mention the subject are removed, this subject does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:ENT. The suggestion above of a redirect might be plausible under WP:BANDMEMBER, except there do not even appear to be reliable sources supporting the band membership. Banks Irk (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here's proof in a reliable source that she was a member of Cobra Starship here so she at least qualifies for a redirect, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-Per WP:ALLMUSIC, it is of questionable reliability on biographical information and other sources should be used instead. Banks Irk (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above, although I think it is eligible for redirect as there's a Allmusic bio source. dxneo (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPA-created vanity or fanpage. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 5th nomination!? Guess there's no double jeopardy here. More so it's like a hung jury over and over again. That it was created by an editor where these are here only edits, that looks fishy to me. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the prior closures had discounted all the "Keeps" from sockpuppets and SPAs, it wouldn't have taken 5 AFDs. Banks Irk (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. What happened to these socks and SPAs? Did we block them all? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LeafK1 showed up here in this deletion discussion, but I guess they lost the passwords for the other accounts. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject plainly does not meet the GNG due to a lack of reliable RS. I'd also recommend a SALT. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Katrulina

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

The article has already been deleted in the de-wiki and ru-wiki, there is a discussion in the uk-wiki. The person has no encyclopedic significance as a scientist, artist or public figure. I have indefinitely blocked the author of the article in the ru-wiki (Darya2023) for aggressive pushing. Khinkali (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Khinkali (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero hits in Gscholar, one hit on a book from 1997 (which doesn't seem to be her), zero in Gsearch, seems to indicate lack of any notability. Having an ORCID means nothing more than registering (I have one, as a wikipedia editor and for a few other projects I collaborate on), doesn't imply notability. This appears to be PROMO vanispamcruft. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How did this get out of AfC only on November 9th? Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Credibility and Significance: The article provides information about Anna Katrulina's activities, including her education, works, publications, and participation in civic and media projects. The sources cited, such as the national university, the national library, scientific publications, and media projects, attest to the credibility of the information.

Adherence to Neutrality and Impartiality: The text appears neutral and impartial, relying on the presented data.

Adherence to Formatting Standards: The structure of the article appears standard: introduction, biography, theory, media art, civic activities, bibliography.

Use of Reliable Sources: Various sources are cited, such as scientific journals and media publications, enhancing the reliability of the article.

Absence of Direct Advertising: There is no overt advertising in the article; it focuses on providing information about Anna Katrulina's activities.

Adherence to Copyright: The text acknowledges Anna Katrulina's authorship, in line with copyright principles.

Completeness and Informativeness: The article provides sufficient information about various aspects of Anna Katrulina's activities and achievements.

Absence of Conflict of Interest: At first glance, there doesn't appear to be a conflict of interest.

Conclusion: Based on the presented text, the article about Anna Katrulina adheres to Wikipedia's rules. Darya2023 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the discussion on the Ukrainian Wikipedia: "There are many publications, a lot of information, the person is active and well-known, and the books have sold in large print runs. In the article, there is a section 'Bibliography,' where three books authored by Katrulina are listed, all three were quite popular and important. The author herself wrote books, and in collaboration, she wrote scientific papers. Therefore, she is a significant individual." Darya2023 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality rules are being violated by administrators on the Russian Wikipedia Darya2023 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the bibliography indicates the years of publication of scientific papers and books, starting from 2022. Darya2023 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the Russian and German Wikipedia, as well as the subsequent persecution on this platform, takes the form of harassment and discrimination, where the focus shifts from constructive discussion to aggressive actions. Please note that both harassment and persecution are carried out specifically by individuals from Russia. It is possible that the reason for this is that Katrulina is Ukrainian. Please pay attention to this fact before expressing your arguments for or against. It is necessary to acknowledge that Anna Aleksandrovna Katrulina is the subject of unjustified attacks, and this fact should be taken into account when considering the removal of her article. It's time to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darya2023 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Information Dissemination: The theory developed by Anna Katrulina constitutes a significant contribution to understanding the impact of information on society. This theory can capture the attention of readers interested in communications and the influence of information in the modern world.

Media Arts and Artistic Projects: Participation in exhibitions and projects, such as Saatchi Gallery and Inside Out, underscores Anna Katrulina's creative and innovative contributions to the fields of art and culture.

Public Engagement: Free workshops and films for socially marginalized groups highlight Anna Katrulina's social responsibility and her commitment to creating a more tolerant society.

Publications and Bibliography: The presence of scientific publications and books, such as "Harmonious Life," supports her contributions to the fields of marketing, public relations, and communications.

Collaboration with Various Organizations: Involvement in projects and advisory initiatives with international, governmental, and civil organizations emphasizes her professional reputation and significance in relevant areas.

Support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and her work for the Information Research Center of the Ukrainian Parliament: Participation in USAID-supported projects confirms her contributions to public research, gaining recognition from influential international organizations.

ORCID Identification: Anna Katrulina's ORCID identification serves as additional confirmation of her scholar status and academic contributions. Additionally, the information about new scientific discoveries can be made public and used while respecting her copyright as the originator of the theory.

The university that publishes scientific monographs with her works ranks first among Ukrainian universities in international university rankings, evaluating academic reputation, the quality of education, and research activities. The monographs listed in her bibliography are international in scope, involving leading scholars from Ukraine, the United States, and Poland.

In summary, the article about Anna Aleksandrovna Katrulina contains information about her significance in various fields, and the above arguments emphasize why the article should be preserved on Wikipedia. The raised issue of harassment underscores the importance of fair and objective discussion. Darya2023 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. To meet English-language notability guidelines, we need direct evidence of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Your best hope of convincing people that Katrulina meets the notability criteria is to provide here citations to the best few sources: articles in publications meeting our reliability criteria which are independent of the subject, and discuss her in depth. Pick the best three, cite them, and let others comment - repeating the same arguments again and again achieves nothing, and can be seen as bludgeoning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Work

ORCID - https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4277-1850

Placement of a scientific work on the website of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for the Information and Research Center of the Parliament of Ukraine:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XCJM.pdf

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XCD1.pdf

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XCG7.pdf

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XCJ7.pdf

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XCG8.pdf

Placement and publication of a scientific work in the library and on the website of the National Library of Ukraine named after V. I. Vernadsky (NBUV) — a nationwide comprehensive library-information, scientific-research, scientific-methodical, and cultural-educational center of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe

The Academic and Scientific Institute of Journalism at Taras Shevchenko National University https://knu.ua/pdfs/official/accreditation/061/2022-2023/54807-brand-communications.pdfof Kyiv, whose academic council has approved the publication of the international scientific monographs listed in the bibliography, holds top positions in international rankings among Ukrainian universities.

Library of Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University - http://ek.kubg.edu.ua/cgi-bin/irbis64r_17/cgiirbis_64.exe?LNG=&P21DBN=KUBG&I21DBN=KUBG_PRINT&S21FMT=fullw_print&C21COM=F&Z21MFN=87312

Coverage of public activities in the fight against discrimination

https://ukurier.gov.ua/uk/news/kudi-vtekti-vid-tirana/

https://www.volynnews.com/news/all/340-hryven-shtrafu-chy-efektyvno-v-ukrayini-dolaiut-domashnye-nasylstvo/

https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-society/3325358-reklamna-revolucia-teper-seksizmu-ne-misce-na-bordah-i-v-rolikah.html

https://provce.ck.ua/aktsiyu-16-dniv-proty-nasylstva-cherkasy-zavershyly-uchastyu-u-mizhnarodnomu-fotoproekti/

https://suspilne.media/62924-ditacij-kinofest-u-cerkasah-prezentuvali-pat-korotkometrazok-vidznatih-ditmi/

The provided sources indicate that the individual's work enjoys broad public recognition. Her influence spans various aspects of life, including active participation in research, publications in reputable libraries and research centers, as well as involvement in public projects addressing discrimination and shaping public opinion. These factors underscore the significance of her work and its impact on diverse aspects of societal life. All the referenced sources in the article's Anna Katrulina links multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Darya2023 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear still not to have read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your personal assessment regarding 'broad public recognition', 'influence', or anything else. Notability is demonstrated only by what independent reliable sources have directly to say about a subject. Citations to Katrulina's own publications are completely irrelevant. Links to libraries that hold her publications are irrelevant. Passing mentions and quotations from the biography subject in articles on another subjects are insufficient. Nothing you have provided so far constitutes evidence of the necessary in-depth coverage in independent sources required to meet our notability criteria. I suggest you stop spamming this page with irrelevant links, and if you cannot provide the necessary valid citations to the type of coverage we require, leave this discussion to take its course. We only have limited patience with contributors who attempt to bludgeon discussion while refusing to take note of relevant Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that you constantly make assumptions unconfirmed by facts. You might not have realized that I have limited patience for those who have already been identified as conflict of interest violators. I am even less interested in your subjective assessment of government and national organizations as sources. They validate authenticity and reliability as sources. Your explanation, on the other hand, only reflects your subjective point of view on the text I wrote. Nothing written by YOU here so far serves as evidence of the necessary deep coverage in independent secondary sources required to meet commonly accepted criteria of notability. Whether you like it or not, this is a fact. Darya2023 (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that over time, the cognitive ability to understand texts has decreased for an editor with almost twenty years of experience. But that's your problem. Darya2023 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significance has been presented, like book reviews that would suggest a WP:NAUTHOR pass. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As always when an article has been REFBOMBed like this could someone please identify the three best sources? I have rather rusty Russian (it is nearly half a century since I passed my A level) and even worse Ukrainian, so I can't go through all the sources in a reasonable time. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: The Wikipedia policy was developed by someone earlier and has been accepted as a commonly understood practice. This article aligns with Wikipedia's principles as an open database. All the necessary evidence for this has been provided above. Additionally, it is important to note that the article is appropriate in this context, considering its relevance and alignment with the topic. Darya 2023 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darya2023 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Wikipedia is not an 'open database'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The term "open database" is applicable to Wikipedia, emphasizing its openness to changes and access to information. Wikipedia fits this definition in the sense that it provides open access to information, and its content is created and maintained by an open community of contributors. Wikipedia indeed operates on open principles, allowing users to freely make changes to the content and share knowledge. I would be interested to hear your arguments Darya2023 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REad Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to an article with references without evidence of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The only external source in the article you provided is a press release, and the book mentioned is not available anywhere. However, you consider it appropriate. At the same time, an article with a vast number of secondary sources is deemed inappropriate by you. This is a double standard. Also, the article does not state that Wikipedia is not an open database. Darya2023 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDATABASE JM (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By this point it has become self-evident that the sources required to demonstrate that the subject of this biography meets Wikipedia notability criteria cannot be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By this point, it has become self-evident that you don't have access to the sources necessary to demonstrate that the subject of this biography meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Darya2023 (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, links to Google Scholar have been added to the article, where secondary sources cite scientific publications authored by Katrulina Darya2023 (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google News: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%B0&sca_esv=582640987&tbs=ar%3A1&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AM9HkKnfbGR6QeFkLCmQcjIGNwyGSZvbqw%3A1700059658187&ei=CtpUZY2FC92wwPAPyby6sAE&ved=0ahUKEwiNspfgn8aCAxVdGBAIHUmeDhYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%B0&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiEtCa0LDRgtGA0YPQu9GW0L3QsDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIHEAAYDRiABDIGEAAYHhgNSNsiUABYvyFwBXgAkAECmAGTA6ABohGqAQkzLjQuMS4yLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCxAAGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAg0QABiABBixAxiDARgKwgIKEAAYgAQYsQMYCsICBRAAGIAEwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICDRAAGA0YgAQYsQMYgwGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-news Darya2023 (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and this is a puff marketing piece. Wouldn't be surprised if there is a COI as well going on. The books and theories they've "written" aren't in their name and the name is just tagged against it. Pulling doubt on any contribution to them. Self published book, claiming it's published by Amazon Publishing with zero evidence of this. It's a puff piece that even the sources in the article don't support the claims of. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can make out from the creator's engagement in this discussion, they have not made any effort to suggest which sources demonstrate notability, and nobody else appears to have been able to find any evidence of notability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and snowclose because everyone here has !voted for deletion except the main writer of the article who is posting ridiculous walls of text to bludgeon people who !vote to delete. JM (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. The author of this page, who is not fluent in English, was recently blocked after people at ANI found out that they were using AI to write in the English Wikipedia. That's most likely why this article seems to have some factual inaccuracies, there is no way this can be kept. SparklyNights (t) 18:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoachRun

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

A WP:BEFORE search only turns up this page and sites selling bus tickets. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP. Google News search only turns up one passing mention of the company, not even the focus of the article. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 18:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short-lived Ottoman provinces

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

This article (or list) appears to be a synthesis of many sources. Each reference is for that specific province. Whether they are "short-lived" depends on our interpretation, and "short-lived provinces" in general is not a concept specifically discussed in the sources as far as I can see. Aintabli (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the minds of those who create such articles continue to baffle. "Short-lived"??? What next, "Ottoman provinces with more than three vowels in their name"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no clear selection criteria for the list members, and "short-lived" is ambiguous and subjective (WP:SELCRIT). ("More than three vowels in their name" criterion would be better in this regard; LOL.) --Kammerer55 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extremely problematic article that has no definable criteria. Let'srun (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Lomas

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

The subject, an Ecuadorian women's footballer, has not received sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG; I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions in squad lists and match reports. JTtheOG (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ecuador. JTtheOG (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's strange as there is no evidence of notability, but she's an international footballer. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not too strange. Many international footballers don't receive significant coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Feza

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

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG; I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Oufi

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. I'm not sure if 2 caps for the Saudi Arabia national team are enough because I literally can't find anything else beyond the usual stats websites. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Several editors hold that this discussion is out of process and that more discussion needs to be had to merge lists affected by this proposal. I don't think the "out of process" charge is entirely fair to Buaidh, given the level of their contributions to the article and their prior attempts to solicit input on these pages, but it is clear that a proposal to delete will not be moving forward at this time, and that discussion should be held at a talk page to figure out how to proceed with the maintenance of these lists. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Colorado: A–F

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

This list has been replaced by a merged and updated List of populated places in Colorado. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/2023-08-08 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Colorado#Proposed_merger.

This deletion request includes:

Buaidh talk e-mail 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe List of Places in Colorado: A-F, G-O, P-Z, are all very helpful and used frequently by my family when researching a name or place. The List of Populated Places in Colorado is not as complete and does not provide the information we need. It is helpful to find the information in one article as opposed to trying to find various other articles which may or may not show up in searches. Auldwhispers (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your merger discussion had no one participating but you. You have to tag the articles you wish to merge with a merge discussion template, then discuss things properly. We have Category:Lists of populated places in the United States by state and far more states listed in the Category:Lists of places in the United States by state. Need a standard naming convention. Why only list the populated places? Is there another place for places that are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but aren't populated? Before you decided to erase it without discussion(I have you, nominate it properly) Template:List of places in Colorado header shows
more than 1,500 ghost towns – List of ghost towns in Colorado
more than 1,500 historic places – List of National Register of Historic Places in Colorado
more than 340 mountain passes – List of mountain passes of Colorado
more than 2,800 mountain peaks – List of mountain peaks of Colorado
273 municipalities – List of municipalities in Colorado
more than 400 post offices – List of post offices in Colorado
more than 600 protected areas – List of protected areas of Colorado

So we need those listed somewhere. Dream Focus 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. It does seem like the nominator hastily sped forward the merge process above when they were the only one to comment on it. So, it feels as if they went around the standard process (30 days discussion for merging articles, tagging them, etc.). Therefore, it seems abhorrent to reduce 1500 historical but non-populated places to ashes due to a lack of commentary on the merge discussion. Something I'll also mention, is that some of the places on this list probably don't belong, but AfD is not cleanup. This article meets WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - procedural keep per Dream Focus and Conyo14.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’ve maintained both the List of places in Colorado and the List of populated places in Colorado for many years with over 8,000 edits. It has become very burdensome to keep these two lists in synch. These lists comprise the following items:
- List of places in Colorado – partial list of more than 4,000 miscellaneous places, not currently up to date, 945,633 bytes.
- List of populated places in Colorado – list of 3,825 populated places recently reformatted and updated from the Geographic Names Information System and nine Wikipedia lists, 904,754 bytes.

We can only reasonably support one list of this size. The List of populated places in Colorado is comprehensive, but the List of places in Colorado is rather arbitrary. The GNIS lists 23,775 non-populated places in Colorado. If someone is interested in non-populated places they can reference the following three lists not included in the populated places:

We can update the List of places in Colorado with items from the List of populated places in Colorado and the above three lists, but I’m not sure that mountains, passes, and parks really fit in. I’m the coordinator for Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado and the meta:Wikimedians of Colorado User Group and I’ve asked for input or help with this project without response. I’m concerned that if we don’t merge these two lists soon, they will both die of entropy. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 01:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good enough reason to proceed with a rather large transaction of articles. I mean, if you suggest lack of entropy (notability is not temporary) over a few articles that fit NLIST, then a merge is a fine thing to do, but not something you can go ahead with because you're the only one managing these articles. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly broad list that is redundant to several others. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When List of populated places in Colorado: A–F was created, did anyone go through to verify that these are indeed populated places? None of them are sourced, and I suspect the list was built from GNIS which is known to mislabel things. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlthewave: I recently cross-checked that all places in the List of populated places in Colorado are, or have been, populated. The List of places in Colorado: A–F has not been recently checked. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - May I ask what you cross-checked them against? The redlinked entries have no obvious sourcing, and many of the bluelinked articles are sourced only to GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dlthewave: All of the places in the List of populated places in Colorado have been verified with at least one reference and usually several. Some of these places may need to be relabeled. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 13:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Not ready for mainspace, lacks inline citations to verify content. I'm finding a number of mislabeled "unincorporated communities" as would be expected for a list copied from GNIS. Unsourced entries need to be gone through one-by-one and corroborated with reliable sources; even many of the bluelinked entries do not point to any sourcing beyond GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlthewave: Please let me know which places are improperly labeled in either list. Thanks, Buaidh talk e-mail 01:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the ones that I found but the majority of the "unincorporated community" entries are unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dlthewave: Please stop deleting places from the List of populated places in Colorado unless you know what you are doing. Most of the places you deleted had post offices at one time. The places you deleted may merely need to be relabeled as former post offices. Please check with the List of post offices in Colorado. I've verified all of the post offices against the references listed. I would appreciate your help in relabeling rather than deleting places. Thank you, Buaidh talk e-mail 13:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the discussion #Proposed merger had no responses, for something obviously controversial that's not acceptable to go ahead with mergeing, and off-wiki meetups are also not acceptable when it comes to determining controversial merges and as has been said above, this lists more than populated places it includes mountain passes etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge "Places" is obviously not the same as "populated places", and it's reasonable to keep a list of populated places together in one place under the appropriate name, and geographic features should be listed in their own lists as they are. It should then be cleaned up to be only the notable populated places, and not non-notable post offices and names scraped from the GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: The terms "settlement" and "populated place" mean the same thing, although "populated place" is the more common term in the U.S. Any list that contains formerly populated or extinct settlements should make that clear in the lede. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this nomination is flawed. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles clearly meet WP:CLN/AOAL for reader navigation aids. I think the templates are a matter for WP:TFD, so no opinion on them. // Timothy :: talk 12:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saravanan Srii

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

Little known Tamil film cinematographer who has worked on one low-key film. Sources reveal nothing about the individual. The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie. Neutral Fan (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User: Sajantext please note wikipedia is not a movie database .if he /she is notable only create page.if u need to add these article please use IMDb Monhiroe (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Monhiroe (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MD Vijay

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

Little known Tamil film producer who has worked on one low-key film. Sources reveal nothing about the individual. The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie. Neutral Fan (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Food production company CEO with a similar name, no coverage found for this individual. Sourcing used in the article isn't in RS or trivial coverage Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP :Soon will wait untill do some more film. Monhiroe (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a notable till now Worldiswide (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:The subject of article is not meet to WP:GNG & WP:NBIO. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Marijuana (2020 film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MD Anand

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

Little known Tamil film director who has worked on one low-key film. Sources reveal nothing about the individual. The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie. Neutral Fan (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one low-key film will wait untill 3 films he do and willl make it live Monhiroe (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable till now ... atleast, artist should have work in three movies Worldiswide (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with Marijuana (2020 film), his only notable film so far. Rather opposed to delete as both pages have sources.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thamizh Thiyagarajan

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

Little known Tamil film producer who has worked on one low-key film. Sources reveal nothing about the individual. The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie. Neutral Fan (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already he did world short film donna. and he did upcoming Tamil films. or want to add more categories or links??

Little known Tamil film producer who has worked on one low-key film: Ans: yes. everything is film right. already he did world short film and worked in tamil film industry.

reference: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7133853/

Sources reveal nothing about the individual: Ans: read the Tamil Hindu thisai article about this person.

Reference: (https://www.hindutamil.in/news/supplements/hindu-talkies/1144723-the-woman-who-set-out-to-rescue-murugan.html)

@Neutral Fan : The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie.

Ans: this is not a promotional movie. movie already completed and waiting for the release. Then you should mentioned every upcoming movies like promoting right. this is not enough reason Sajantext (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

donna short film reference link: https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/cannes-2015-nomination-boost-for-indie-filmmakers-says-donna-director-762153

every reference is here. then why we need to delete this person. other wise you should help me out to improve this page.@Monhiroe. Sajantext (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite hard to understand what you mean at any point. It's not clear at all. This unknown person has made three low-key, unknown short films and has a token 'special thanks' credit in a low-budget film. There's really little defence about his supposed notability - clear, quick delete. Neutral Fan (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bro we need reliable source right. everything was there bro. low key or big short everyone in public figure. enough sources already there then why we need to delete. Sajantext (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: not a notable person and Too ealy to have page Monhiroe (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wife appears more notable than he does, based on her article in the newspaper. This person just isn't recognized in any RS to warrant an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This AfD has been open a month and I see two main point of disagreements: a) Whether WP:NOTDB applies and b) Whether there is sufficient sourcing to be able to improve these articles. Despite several relists and views, I can't clearly see either of the arguments for keeping and for deleting to have the upper hand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's volleyball team squads

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

Though I recognize the effort put into it, this article, and the very similar ones below, are classic WP:NOTDATABASE violations. The relevant tournament is a valid article, and "[Country] at the 2023 Pan American Games" is also probably viable, but no reliable source is going to examine the totality of each team's roster in detail. Delete all, as they are not viable search terms either. Bundling eight articles that are all lists of team rosters at Pan-American games. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the past, there was an editorial decision to split these roster articles from the main tournament article as it was considered too long for the main page - the sub-articles do not necessarily need to pass notability requirements due to this - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handball at the Goodwill Games for a similar example and explanation. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: I'm unaware of more general discussions about rosters, but the arguments from the handball AfD don't apply here. The outcome there was appropriate because the results of the handball tournaments at each individual game were considered encyclopedic information that was aggregated by sport rather than by year. I submit that an exhaustive roster at a tournament that isn't the highest level of a sport isn't encyclopedic at all, no matter how it's sliced. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Football, Canada, Latin America, South America, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note, Vanamonde, that Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's team squads still needs to be AFD tagged and creator notified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the football ones as there looks to be good sourcing; no views on the others. Giant Snowman 19:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: There is routine coverage of each team's announced roster, but that doesn't establish the encyclopedic nature of a giant table of every team's roster. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting absolutely all articles due to supposedly lack of verification does not seem plausible to me. Only articles that clearly lack sources should be eliminated. Svartner (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is common to have those squad pages and they are (mostly) sourced. Kante4 (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's many articles like this for big sporting events; if this is unacceptable, the discussion should start somewhere else. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nfitz. If such articles are not wanted a broader discussion is needed. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear consensus to Keep these articles (and no support for Deletion), I don't see anyone challenging the nominator's main argument that these articles violate WP:NOTDATABASE. Relisting to see if the argument is forthcoming.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Subject is a clear violation of WP:NOTDATABASE as at their core these articles are factual yet provide no context. Just because it is common to have articles like this on wikipedia doesn't mean that they meet the relevant policies. Don't see any plausible redirect either. User:Let'srun 04:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a failure of NOTDATABASE at all - the articles clearly explain what they're about (e.g. This article shows the rosters of basketball teams competing at the 2011 Pan American Games ... The Canada team, made up of 11 players, is listed in the below table – that's clearly understandable) – and NOTDATABASE itself states Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. These follow NOTDATABASE exactly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. The essence of NOTDATABASE is context, not formatting: the relevant sentence is the early one, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Statistics that can be framed by encyclopedic prose are acceptable. Statistics that will never be more than a table without any further context are not suited to Wikipedia. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I have yet to see any coverage of these teams that are more than announcements, but if there is any I guarantee it is more relevant to the "[Country] at the [YYYY] Pan American Games" articles than to this listing of every team's roster. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it does, though – NOTDATABASE is meant to exclude mass listings of poorly-sourced statistics that are not given context (i.e. made understandable to the average person) – the articles definitely explain what they are (e.g. This article shows the rosters of all participating teams at the men's basketball tournament at the 2011 Pan American Games in Guadalajara, Mexico. Rosters can have a maximum of 12 players.) and NOTDATABASE states that large amounts of relevant stats that are explained should be spun-out in separate articles, giving a very similar article in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election as an example of something that would be acceptable. And additionally, as Nfitz stated above, articles such as these have long been regarded as acceptable, so AFD shouldn't be sufficient consensus to overturn such precedent; an RFC should take place if you do not believe the encyclopedia should have this type of work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These article don't demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of their subject, which is the essence of WP:NOT. Context is not just comprehension. I could upload my university's internal sports records as an article, and they would be perfectly comprehensible, but still a violation of NOTDATABASE. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability ought to come into play as well: the Pan American Games are a major international sports competition; your school's sports records, likely not so much (although some coverage could be warranted depending on the notability of said university's teams, like we do at, e.g., Georgia Bulldogs football statistical leaders). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course notability comes into play. The games are notable, as I've said above, and sub-articles organized by sport or by country are probably also notable. The team rosters are not, and nobody has demonstrated any such notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to disagree on whether notability has been demonstrated; I still hold that they have been, as NOTDB states that if the main article is notable, it is often appropriate to split it out into sub-articles when there are large amounts of statistics (statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.). I also don't believe that a lone AFD would be sufficient consensus to overturn a long-standing precedent of these types of articles; an RFC would be better. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as violations of WP:NOTDB. The sporting side of Wikipedia is not exempt from list standards. I will acknowledge, as some other editors have commented above, that an RfC may be required here as these articles seem to be symptoms of a larger issue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind explaining how it fails NOTDB instead of just plain asserting that it does? As the criterion states that [As statistics can be confusing]; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article – that is saying that lengthy statistics, when explained and put into tables (as in this case), are to be split out into articles like this, and it cites a very similar example in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election as an example of what would be an appropriate pass of it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  In addition to what Vanamonde93 said above, I'll also add that the encyclopedic value of statistics is informed by their coverage in reliable sources. The difference between the list in the policy and the lists being considered for deletion here is that the first one has widespread, direct coverage of the subject in dozens of sources — the list is in fact about how many sources had conducted opinion polls on the election — whereas the sources that have covered the subjects of these teams rosters are also all primary sources. NOTDB does indeed recommend splitting unwieldy tables into separate articles, but when that split happens, the new article is subject to an individual assessment of notability — it does not inherit that from the main article. Again, the lack of coverage in reliable sources prevents these lists from being considered notable either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fits much better as its own article and these games are clearly relevant. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in general agreement with BeanieFan11 about how NOTDB applies to this type of article. Perhaps the information would be better included in Volleyball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's tournament and not as a SPINOFF article and it would be helpful if there was some summary information in the lede about the primary topic. So, I am somewhere between a keep (for now if there is desire to hold an RFC about this type of stand-alone article) and a merge (either back into the parent articles or with additional material about the notability of the subject included in these articles). --Enos733 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 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) 14:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite what some users have asserted, notability is not inherited. Just because the Pan American Games are relevant doesn't make this not a violation of WP:NOTDB. Let'srun (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information on athletes participating in team sports is not random or disordered, it has sources of official documents from the respective organizing entities/confederations. It is also not redundant, as there is no space for this type of information in the main article. What would be the point of deleting such content? Svartner (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending a wider discussion on the viability of all Squad list articles for such tournaments, of which there are a great many across various sports and events. Surely either all are fine or none are. Crowsus (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. There is absolutely no content in these "articles" beyond the database listing of players. Any encyclopedic content about the games is already included in 2023 Pan American Games. Most of the Keep opinions I see here fall into the WP:WHATABOUTX/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category. Owen× ☎ 01:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't exactly say its "otherstuffexists"-category arguments; rather, its more of a "this has been accepted precedent for a decade-plus and so one AFD shouldn't be sufficient to overturn such a long-standing and major precedent that would impact many hundreds / thousands of other articles"-category argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per my previously expressed points regarding NOTDB (which states that it is often appropriate to split-out sourced / table-ized statistics from notable main articles) and my / others' concern over the lack of precedent for doing such actions / the necessity of an RFC on said issue. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. There is absolutely no content in these articles beyond the database listing of players. Wikipedia is not a database of sports stats. the abundance of redlinks shows this can't be considered a navigation aid, any arguement based in CLN will be very thin. // Timothy :: talk 13:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB - there definitely isn't context for any of this information, and we are not a sports stats database. I understand the argument that since there are many such other articles, we should have a broader discussion on these before deleting, but WP:OSE is not a strong argument, and also people often complain about mass deletion RfCs since the "proper venue is AfD". Galobtter (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. No independent secondary sources exist for this subject. Also violates WP:NOT for being a database entry. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ketchum Sun Valley Historical Society Heritage & Ski Museum

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

Sourced solely to the Historical Society's website and Facebook page, neither of which convey notability (obviously). Found mentions of the Historical Society in the news, but nothing on the museum itself. Article was created by User:Ksvhs; blatant CoI. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Idaho. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you found more sources then link them 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, they're not about the museum, so it would be a waste of time to include them here. If you want them, I believe everything I found that I note was on archive.org, but there's really no point. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, I misread the nom-statement 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTADVERT with no sourced hint at notability. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- Per WP:NOTADVERT & Nominator. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanting Apple

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

Contested WP:PROD Unreferenced and tagged for notability since 2018. Unable to find sources. Fails WP:NBOOK. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, no interwiki. Not a hoax, but nothing in the article suggests WP:NBOOK is met. Failed attempt to create an article. Original PROD removed by the creator, sigh. Almost all of their articles have been deleted ([13]), I see one is prodded, I'll prod the last one. Someone clearly has hard time understanding WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cookbooks and a Victorian Halloween traditions are what come up, nothing for this manga/book. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Misner

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

I am not seeing any coverage to indicate that WP:BIO is met. Some poor quality sources e.g. state he was called the “Father of Modern Networking” by both Forbes and CNN but I can't find any coverage from either Forbes or CNN which would support that. SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Forbes contributor piece [14] and typical fluffy PR pieces are all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Big Brother Mzansi (season 3)#Housemates. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naledi Mogadime

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft deleted three months ago, and nothing notable has happened in her career since. Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:ENT, with only minor roles and an also-ran in a reality TV show. No significant coverage of her online in RS, just passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and South Africa. Wikishovel (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It states here that the subject was one of the Big Brother Mzansi Top 10 contestants and she went on to join the 2022 Miss SA Teen judging panel, and also here that she made her acting debut featuring on Idris Elba movie Beast (2022). Per #1 of WP:NACTRESS, how many times is "multiple times"? dxneo (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, WP:AtD, redirect seems like the way to go as it is WP:TOOSOON. dxneo (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage being on her participation in BBM3, then redirect to the page about it, Big_Brother_Mzansi_(season_3)#Housemates.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sub silentio

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

The article also does not contain appropriate references. Unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonhelp2 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) — Anonhelp2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DICDEF, specialized legal term it appears. No sourcing found beyond just saying what it means. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. As a legal concept, this phrase requires more explanation than would ordinarily be provided in a dictionary definition—it is more complex than the sum of its parts. And if it were to be deleted, it would first need to be reconciled with the similar, but evidently misspelled entry sub silencio at Wiktionary, which fails to provide the context and example provided here—dictionary definitions are usually shorter than this article.
The nominator deleted the explanation of the phrase, which seems like a bad way to start the deletion process (removing content that might make the article more likely to survive AfD). Added to which, the rationale given for the nomination—"abuse by IP addresses", is not a valid reason for deletion—and the article history shows plenty of valid edits, most made without IP addresses, although anonymous edits are expressly allowed on Wikipedia. We do not need to delete the article's edit history; there is no policy or reason for doing so, but there are several valid reasons for preserving it, including the work of legitimate editors working to improve the encyclopedia.
And it does not appear that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE or any other procedures related to nominating articles for deletion (including signing the nomination). Articles are not deleted because the references are bad or insufficient, and opinions of a court of law are perfectly "appropriate" sources. If additional sources are needed, the nominator needs to look for them before nominating the article for deletion; we don't delete articles because they need more (or any) sources, but because sources cannot be located with a reasonable attempt to do so—and this article already has a valid source; it looks as though it can't be hard to find more. This is not a valid nomination in any respect. P Aculeius (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There are many legal dictionaries, sites and blogs that provide a definition for the term. I don't see a reason why there would be any confusion with it and 'Sub silencio'. If anything, the explanation here seems a bit confusing compared to the other explanation of the term that has been provided else where. Not only is there no further explanation to expand on what was said, there also nothing indicating where it was gotten from. It provides a very vague explanation with no sourcing and nothing to back up the statement. And a quote from a judgment where they merely stated the term does not provide an explanation of the term. Kalsp (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC) — Kalsp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. There are entire periodical articles about this concept, such as: [15] [16]. The concept seems, in particular, to include stealth overruling: [17]. There is a large body of coverage that goes beyond a mere definition of a phrase. This article is not a presently dictionary definition, as it includes content that goes beyond mere definition of a phrase. This article is capable of being further expanded with content that goes beyond mere definition of a phrase. There is nothing that could be described as "abuse" of IP addresses in the page history, as far as I can see. James500 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500's analysis and the sources he has provided.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~This specific article does not fully explain the point or provide references for what was provided. Neither does the judgment it refers. The previously provided point was taken from an already existing online article with no reference as to where the information was obtained from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonhelp2 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 November 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) 13:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I researched the concept before even reading the article. It seemed patently article-worthy. Loads of legal textbooks and whatnot. Then I read the article and wondered why it didn't give even a basic definition of the idea. So I looked at the edit history and found that it did for 17 years (thanks to Legis (talk · contribs)) until the nominator here got at it. This isn't often the case but this is a speedy keep. Both Anonhelp2 (talk · contribs) and Kalsp (talk · contribs) appear to be mucking us about and abusing AFD for vandalism, and now we have their, or possibly just one person's, mess to clean up. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Uncle G and P Aculeius. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 17:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep As both @James500 and @Uncle G have explained, the article had no problem prior to vandalism. Since bad references is not a valid excuse for deletion, I also see no need to delete this article. Additionally, the argument that this is but a dictionary entry is untrue, as the topic is complicated enough to merit an article explaining it.
Industrial Insect (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Paddock

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Promo UPE linkedin muck. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator uses some colourful language to characterise this article's nature, but it is essentially what we have here. Sourcing is problematic, notability is by no means evident. Gentleman exited a startup. They do it every day. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is fluff. Promotionally-toned article from an editor who writes a lot of promotionally-toned articles - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable business person, lack of any sort of RS coverage [18] is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Kapil Dev. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Dev as Indian national cricket coach

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK from Kapil Dev. He coached India for 33 games ever, which is not a lot by general coaching standards, and nothing in this article explains why that era was so exceptional that it needs a separate article, rather than just being a couple of paragraphs in the main article Kapil Dev#National coach. Note: the fact that it's a GA is not a reason to keep, since the GA status is from 2007 and being challenged at a GAR, and also good article from 2007 does not imply notable in 2023. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - debatable how much of this article (which is an unnecessary WP:CFORK, agreed) should be kept for the Kapil Dev main article but that's up to the editor who wants to merge. I think there are maybe three or four good paragraphs to flesh out the Kapil Dev article. If anything, a new article could be created from the match-fixing and betting racket. Kazamzam (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kapil Dev: Seems overly detailed for such a small bit of playing time/coaching time. Could be a brief section under a bribery allegations in the main bio article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge seems appropriate here. If, indeed, there's anything that needs merging. We certainly don't need a standalone article here and I wouldn't be particularly opposed to a delete outcome Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kapil Dev: Inappropriate fork. Anything salvageable should be merged. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge with Kapil Dev Unnecessary content fork, however there is some information here that could be merged to the parent article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge. This seems to be the most appropriate outcome here. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively with Kapil Dev; noting here that I just delisted it as GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Foreign relations of Ukraine#Malawi. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Ukraine relations

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

This article is scraping the barrel for bilateral relations and I've seen many in my years on WP. There is no bilateral relations except for a single phone call. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foreign relations of Ukraine#Africa. Kazamzam (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly any content to merge, the extent of the relations seems to be just a phone call. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. THere's not much here. Yilloslime (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have merged the very little content in this article into Foreign relations of Ukraine, as it warrants a place there in any case. imo this means the article can now be deleted as it certainly doesn't stand on its own. Akakievich (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect now that a merge has taken place. Attribution is legally required. ✗plicit 14:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Explicit. Owen× ☎ 17:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morphic (band)

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find find anything let alone a thing that comes close to RS or meeting WP:MUSICBIO requirements not even a Allmusic bio, only download/streaming links. Please ping me if sources possibly from archives are presented. dxneo (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rising (professional wrestling)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Rising (professional wrestling)

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

Short lived stable, just 3 months. No notable, no in-deep coverage of the subject, just WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage for this trio found. All about Vince McMahon retiring. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundaranarayana

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

Fails WP:GNG. Promotional. Of the four sources cited, none are RS. The article has been speedy deleted by A7, but I think AfD is the way to go here. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable, clearly a mostly uncited essay and clearly virtually unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional material without indication of importance. Kazamzam (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Karol Bagh#Education. ✗plicit 04:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Academy, Delhi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Maliner (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karol Bagh#Education as the locality. This a fee paying private school, but looking at the fee levels doesn't seem to be a for-profit school. Found mentions but not signicant coverage. One source says the current Mayor of Delhi was educated here. Rupples (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. It's unfortunate that the article creator didn't work through the AFC system, if they had, we'd probably not have reached this conclusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karumpuli Sastha and Thadikara Swamy Temple

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

This is a contested draftification. Fails to establish notability, and doesn't appear to have coverage at all in reliable sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and Tamil Nadu. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly clarify whether the below can be considered as reliable source ?

https://www.muthalankurichikamarasu.com/shop/%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81-2/

(A 117 page book on "Kulasekaranatham Karumpuli Sastha' by Muthalankurichi Kaamarasu in non English (Tamil) which is available in Kindle)

Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - the editor won't go through the AfC process, the draft has been declined then moved to mainspace despite that. It was also draftified - and submission declined - as Arulmigu Sri Thadikara Swamy & Sri Petchiamman Thaayaar Arulmigu Sri Karumpuli Andavar Temple, Kulasekaranatham, Alwarthirunagari, Thoothukudi. It's not notable and the author is simply wasting people's time. Given the author's only contribution to WP is these unhelpful articles a CIR block would save further time being wasted, BTW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so many sastha temples are considered notable under WP with few sources how come this particular page is nominated for deletion inspite of adding sufficient independent and secondary sources cited by me. Further lot of information has to be added to this article based on a book. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"But what about X" is not a sufficient reason to keep an article. Cortador (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources added by me are in native language which is not understandable by the reviewer. Further such kind of sastha temple related information are already present in WP with few sources which can be reviewed at your level. I have gone through the AFC process and cited sources from established news agency. Further cited a book under sources which is overlooked by you. I haven't added neither theory nor stick to my own interest. Kindly review the article by its sources not in a hurry burry manner. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reference no 1 is Official website of Government of Tamilnadu, India. The identity and existence of the temple can be confirmed using this source.

Reference no 2 is Official Government website of Tuticorin District of Tamilnadu, India. The existence of RV (Revenue Village) Paragramapandi can be confirmed using this source.

External Link no 1 is a notable tamil weekly magazine which briefly narrates about the history of the temple ( Sthala Purana) This article is an eye opener for the people who are anxious to know about history, meaning of the name karumpuli, location details, deity etc

The above three are sufficient enough for the present version of the article.

Furthermore External Links from 2 to 7 provides 'supporting' to the primary sources mentioned above.

Work is on to gather additional information for expansion of the article

Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Poor sourcing and the creator trying to dodge scrutiny by creating a draftified article under a slightly different name are sufficient reasons. Cortador (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
may please maintain decorum while replying. Based on comments received for original article, title is altered short to express precise meaning by removing location name / honour name. Further the contents of the latest article fully adheared to the sources. Still you haven't answer the core point how come similar pages exist with few one or two sources much less than what I have cited. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered your question: the existence or absence of one article doesn't justify the existence or absence of another. If you think those other articles are lacking, feel free to give them an appropriate tag, or nominate them for deletion. It's not the job of any other editor to do that for you. I have linked the policy that is based on above; if you don't understand that, I can't help you.

The article current cites two sources, and they are both government websites and unsuitable to establish notability, independently from the language they are in. Also, below you openly admit that you simply altered the title of your original declined article "to express precise meaning" i.e. trying to sneak the article through under a different name is precisely what you are doing. You, quite literally, said so yourself. Cortador (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly clarify how government website is unsuitable for establishing notability. Quite Interesting. Again I'm telling I have edited the article title only to express precise meaning. How come that is not fit in terms of WP. Quite exciting policies you have. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your policy instead of replying. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if editing article title is against WP policy then why you are enabling such option ? Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

location name thus removed from title is Kulasekaranatham. Honour names are Arulmigu and Sri. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these are in native languages which are not properly decoded at your end. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference no 1 is Official website of Government of Tamilnadu, India. The identity and existence of the temple can be confirmed using this source.

Reference no 2 is Official Government website of Tuticorin District of Tamilnadu, India. The existence of RV (Revenue Village) Paragramapandi can be confirmed using this source.

External Link no 1 is a notable tamil weekly magazine which briefly narrates about the history of the temple ( Sthala Purana) This article is an eye opener for the people who are anxious to know about history, meaning of the name karumpuli, location details, deity etc

The above three are sufficient enough for the present version of the article.

Furthermore External Links from 2 to 7 provides 'supporting' to the primary sources mentioned above.

Work is on to gather additional information for expansion of the article. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does not seem to have "Significant coverage". References 1, 2 only establish its existence. Dinamalar external link also mentions it in its list of temples. External Link no 1 Kungumam (magazine) is an entertainment magazine; not a WP:RS for this topic. I also checked the Tamil external lists - most refer to the temple in passing reference. Arunvikram2208, you can add RS coverage in non-English to establish "Significant coverage"; can reconsider. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly clarify whether the below can be considered as reliable source ?

https://www.muthalankurichikamarasu.com/shop/%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81-2/

(A 117 page book on "Kulasekaranatham Karumpuli Sastha' by Muthalankurichi Kaamarasu in non English (Tamil) which is available in Kindle) Arunvikram2208 (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer, Can I have an update on the notability of the article considering the above source. Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as not notable, the most minor of temples, of which there are many thousands in India. It seems that salting is also necessary given the repeated attempts to get this article onto Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly clarify whether the below can be considered as reliable source ?

https://www.muthalankurichikamarasu.com/shop/%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81-2/

(A 117 page book on "Kulasekaranatham Karumpuli Sastha' by Muthalankurichi Kaamarasu in non English (Tamil) which is available in Kindle)

Arunvikram2208 (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunvikram2208: You don't need to post the same message three times. My view is that this book is not a reliable source, as it looks like it's being printed by a small-time publisher with no evidence of editorial oversight. The low-quality cover image isn't helping either. However, even if it were a reliable source, notability requires one to show that significant coverage exists on the subject; just one source is not enough to demonstrate that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Baruch Adonai L'Olam (Shacharit). It's best not to take action with major article changes unti the AFD has been closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Adonai L'Olam (Maariv)

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

Delete or merge with Baruch Adonai L'Olam (Shacharit) and rename combined page to Baruch adonai l'olam. Same prayer, but for different prayer services. Any minor liturgical differences can be included on combined article page. Longhornsg (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and improve significantly I’m not an expert on siddurim but I do own and use an artscroll. The Baruch said in the evening maariv service is 18 verses meant to replace the Amidah in ancient times (as the article says). The morning shachrit version is exactly the first 4 verses of the 18 line version. So as per OP the article should be merged and mention the 4/18 difference. BUT I am horrified by both articles from a wiki perspective (and these articles are the main ones which appear when you search for the prayer). There’s no structure, seems to use a primary source only, is badly or not at all sourced etc. Someone more versed in the history of the siddur should rewrite the merged version. In the absence of that in the short term I can wikify a merged version (or at least put it on my list to do). So if someone can merge it as per OP (I don’t know how to) I can review for the other issues. Ayenaee (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have altered the nominator's rationale to fix a formatting/layout error (i.e. a bad link syntax) that was causing {{subst:afd2}} to not do anything. I have no opinion with regard to the article itself. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a merged rewrite of the two articles in my sandbox. I just need to do final proofreading and link-checking. Both current articles should be a redirected to a new article called "Baruch Adonai le’Olam" (note the "e" between the "l" and the apostrophe in "le’Olam", leaving it out gives incorrect transliteration). If this AfD can be closed with a merge decision, I think I’ve worked out what to do to sort out the creation, redirection, renaming. Ayenaee (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge works for me as nom. Longhornsg (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bits and Mortar

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Unable to find reliable sources where this entity has received significant coverage. Hitro talk 06:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. Hitro talk 06:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - I found at least two independent sources with information about the topic (added to article) and I think there are others worth digging for. Kazamzam (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep us with your WP:THREE. I'm not currently seeing WP:SIGCOV in the article as is, so I'm having a hard time seeing what you're referring to... Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazamzam there are also sources on the article's talk page but maybe only the ICv2 article would be an RS. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 4 is identified as a RS, but it's trivial (others used in the article aren't). All I can find is this trivial mention [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't been able to locate sources for it to meet the GNG, can't tell what the sole Keep vote is vaguely pointing to. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabelle Jien

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. Unfortunately, most coverage I could find are primary sources (interviews), or are either not independent enough from the subject, or not in-depth. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, and Canada. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added some new sources, please let me know what you think! Kinerd518 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinerd518 Thank you for putting in the work to find more sources! However, the new sources added are not hitting the marks from the general notability guideline. From that guideline, 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. The sources are either not significant coverage, are missing independence from the subject (e.g. her own podcast), or are primary sources (e.g. video of her performance).

The source that seems to have the most significant coverage would be the review of Jade Music Fest performances, but it is not independent either; the same organization (The Society of We Are Canadians Too) runs that festival and the website reviewing the festival performances. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whisperjanes i think i have a clearer picture now, thanks! i've added three more citations, would you say i'm more on the right track now? and thanks for your patience! Kinerd518 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinerd518 Unfortunately, those three citations ([20][21][22]) seem to only mention her in passing. Personally, I think this topic is a bit WP:TOOSOON to have a Wikipedia article. I hesitated putting this up for AFD, because I know this is a new article, and I appreciated the work you put into it.

Alternative to deletion, I do think this content could be moved to userspace (or draftspace) instead, if anyone else agrees to Userfy or Draftify. This article is new, and Jien is relatively young and recently active, so the content that was already written could be useful if she becomes notable. I'm just not sure what type of articles usually warrant being moved to Userspace/Draftspace. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whisperjanes for what it's worth, those options seem reasonable to me! it seems to me like we're in the space where references are not quite up to wikipedia article standards, but yet there are references, and it seems a shame to lose them outright when a middle ground option is available Kinerd518 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. This is depending far too strongly on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and shows very little evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her in reliable sources. We're not looking for simple verification that she's done stuff — we're looking for evidence that journalists and/or music critics have independently assessed the stuff she's done as significant by writing coverage and analysis about it in real media. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenija Nagle

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

The subject, a Latvian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Searches only yield match reports and squad lists. JTtheOG (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Arafa

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject to meet WP:GNG. I searched "Suzanne Arafa," "سوزان عرفة," and " سوزان محمد محمود علي عرفة." Lots of passing mentions, especially during her college career, but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Egypt, and Georgia (U.S. state). JTtheOG (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the snowman. Return to draft and look for more sources. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ Any discussion of a possible future Merge or Redirect can occur on the article talk page and I see no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Busytown

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

Contested PROD. Pure plot summary and a mess - article's lead is "about fictional town", then starts talking about a fictional universe, proceeding to list major characters from the associated franchise. References - just some YouTube links. Prod challenged by User:A. B. who wrote: "This article is an overview of a series of books, games and TV shows that are in Richard Scarry's Busy Town (a.k.a. Busytown, a.k.a. Busy World, a.k.a. Busyworld) universe. You can find lots of articles about Richard Scarry that talk about this world as well as articles about individual books, games and shows. I did not find any that were just about "Busy Town". I am removing the deletion note anyway since an umbrella article for all these things. Note that there is also a template associated with this article, Template:Busytown. If this article is to be deleted, it should be discussed at AfD." So - here we go. I'll note that the series/franchise might be notable, but what we have here violates WP:GNG/WP:ALLPLOT/etc. and needs a WP:TNT. An article about series/franchise should be written from scratch based on sources. Arguably, one could do so using the second paragraph here - but where are the sources? We could also merge that paragraph into an article about the author, but again, I don't like merging unreferenced content. For now, best WP:ATD Ic an think of would be to redirect this to the author (Richard Scarry) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD notices posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, and Television. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject itself meets WP:GNG with notable aspects that might not be comfortably merged into author's bio or any of the existing articles at {{Busytown}}. There's useful prose to build off of in this article, though I think we can expand the scope to be more of a broad summary of the media focused around the topic (including "Busy People", "Busy World", etc). This "universe" is a massive cultural touchstone in children's media in the US. Such an article is probably the best way to cover this topic. I don't see a tentpole article dedicated to it right now.
Coverage of this article's subject ranges from education, to analogies, to criticism to reviews of multi-media including a 1994 CD-ROM. Here's a refdump to get us going (not exhaustive): [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] —siro χ o 04:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at ref 1 - this is gibberish. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's using it as an analogy. This is just a quick non-exhaustive search to show how broad coverage is of this subject. —siro χ o 03:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not disagreeing that the series may be motable (may, not is - no obviously good sources have been pointed out, we are at the WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES stage), as I said, the article right now is so poor it merits WP:TNTing. Redirecting it with soft deletion is being "nice". Of course, if anyone wants to rewrite it now, go for it - as you know, I am happy to withdraw nominations if fixes happen. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Scarry or at least redirect. Plenty of coverage of Scarry and his bibliography of books in Busytown, but as a fictional location, there's no real coverage of the various characters at the level of this detail. Scarry's article could probably include a Busytown section to briefly describe the fictional world he wrote/illustrated but that's about it. --Masem (t) 05:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an author or series page. The article's subject matter as a fictional setting isn't supported by significant coverage in secondary sources. The above proposed reference list is a mix of trivial mentions and examples of primary source uses or reviews of works that feature the setting. I think the article would be warranted if there is a reliable source of independent overview or analysis of the Busytown world in Scarry's literature outside of primary sources. At present, there isn't, but hopefully more can be found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as @Siroxo says the article subject is notable and the article has some good text. It's a different topic to Scarry himself as he did a variety of work of which the Busytown books are only a subset.

I have added a small analysis and criticism section which includes several high quality citations. Each gives direct focus to the book with the possible exception of the Journal of Pragmatics article which just uses it as an example. Two (the Carnegie Magazine and Poetics) articles should easily count as SIGCOV.

I agree this article needs more references although the obvious source would be the books themselves (not for notability, but as a reference). It seems to me many articles about books contain a "plot" section which is uncited for obvious reasons. Oblivy (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respect and admire your approach to improve an article at risk of deletion. I disagree that the approach of collating academic minutiae can construct notability in itself, but it is a helpful thing to do. The Carnegie magazine primarily refers to an exhibit of the same name at the Carnegie Science Center. The Poetics journal is an obscure philosophical flourish on the depiction of animal labor in one Scarry book. The Occupational Medicine article mostly just describes the visual presentation of the cover of one book. The Pragmatics article does not mention Busytown. This would all be fine, but the article itself still lacks a foundation of having secondary sources reliably describe what Busytown is in Scarry's work. In terms of analysis and commentary, I'm still not sure why this couldn't be better covered in an article about the series/media (which doesn't seem to be called Busytown) or of the author's work in the primary article. Hope I'm not coming on too strong over the notability of the setting of a children's book! But just my thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the sources. We can disagree (and I do) but I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

The poetics journal strikes me as a way of talking about how a ubiquitous children's book can influence how kids view labor roles. More importantly, it's entirely devoted to Busytown (and not the author) as a subject. And Carnegie museum article talks a lot about to article subject (the interview with the librarian) and why they decided to devote an entire museum exhibition to it. WP:GNG asks for significant coverage of the article subject in independent reliable sources, and these two are just that. For sure other cites are less in-depth.

The question of what Busytown represents as part of Scarry's work probably belongs in his article, but this topic is deserving of an article. Oblivy (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I sometimes overthink this stuff and am mindful it can come off as being a bit much. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the start on improving it. I will try to get to it as well (or at the very least try to provide a more helpful source analysis beyond my above refdump). —siro χ o 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. If we were to remove the fancrufty list of characters, this would start looking as a proper encyclopedic article. I suggest you do this and ping everyone who voted oppose so that they can reconsider their views, and I'll do this myself when I have time to read this more closely. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made another set of revisions including adding general cites and citations for some of the major characters, as well as some new text. IMHO the demand to remove part of the article is not appropriate at this forum per WP:NOTCLEANUP. That part of the article has considerable merit even if it needs editing. As it stands the article has adequate sourcing for notability which should be enough. Oblivy (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that cleanup is needed but this is, like siro pointed out, a cultural touchstone with (IMO) sufficient sourcing. At risk of being a WP:WHATABOUT offender... there's an entire article for the Busytown Mysteries spinoff. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess work done by Oblivy to improve this article. I look over dozens of AFDs daily but I never thought I'd be reading an assessment over one of the U.S.'s most important children's authors. No, I don't have a COI, he's just one of the few authors I remember from my own childhood. Never thought I'd run into him or his work at AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion isn't cleanup and Scarry's works as a children's author are clearly notable beyond reasonable doubt. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's got discussions in peer-reviewed journals, I think it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rim Chol-min

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Kwan-myong

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Korea and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The athlete, despite having played in the Russian League, has not made any appearances according with the own article. He only played one game for North Korea, a team that has problems with clear information about its players in general. Svartner (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nay Moe Naing

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of sources outside profiles and WP:ROUTINE sources. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Active athlete for the Myanmar national team, the article demands improvements but the deletion seems exaggerated at this moment. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide significant coverage showing that WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC are met? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farzad Ataie

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone run a searches in Dari Persian, Pashto or Farsi? I would assume 15 international caps and winning the Afghan Premier League notable. [31] However I just see a lot of databases in my search. Ping me if there are decent hits. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Persian searches only come up with coverage on Facebook and YouTube rather than any actual WP:RS coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Nolan

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

Scramble of unreliable and primary sources, and no other sources can be found. There is no suitable article to merge or redirect, and the only option is deletion. Therefore, it violates WP:N and WP:RS. Equal width (C) 03:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NGAELIC, "significant coverage is likely to exist for [..a..] Hurler who has played in the National Hurling League or at senior inter-county level in the Championship". As that is the case here, I did a very quick WP:BEFORE search and found more than a few sources to support the text and a claim to notability under this guideline. I have added some of the sources I found to the article itself. Others were redundant, so I didn't add them. I personally do not understand (and cannot support) the nominator's assertion that "no other sources can be found". At all... Guliolopez (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the sources that I didn’t! After all, I don’t find sources easily. Equal width (C) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After finding who made all these sources, they seem to be either unreliable or primary sources, and that mix deserves deletion. Equal width (C) 06:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Equalwidth, I intervene here to note that the sources are neither unreliable nor primary (they are not Nolan's website or Facebook, but include county newspapers, for example, which are usually good on local topics, and have proper editorial control). You are fairly new to the project, in time and by edit activity, and perhaps have not had time to fully study the policies, but it is important that if you base a statement on a policy or definition, you are clear on its meaning (otherwise you can state an opinion, but without claimed policy justification). SeoR (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, county newspapers are primary sources and some other ones are unreliable Equal width (C) 08:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper report, even a local one, can be secondary if it includes commentary / analysis, while some of the references, being national papers (no reporter there on the day) or national broadcaster, are definitely secondary, often drawing on more local reporting. And it is important that both types of source have good uses, and all the sources there are RS-grade (...has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, ...is published by a reputable publisher, ...is directly about the subject, ...is a third-party or independent source, ...has a professional structure in place ... such as editorial oversight). Most Gaelic sportspeople are captured at least partly due to local and national newspapers / radio / TV. SeoR (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think sources are clearly showing a topic meeting NGAELIC, albeit they mostly lack depth - they do provide evidence that the person meets the bar of "active in inter-county play". Some people may question the standard set, but it has stood a long time, and has led to many solid articles, and some day this one might grow to such too. SeoR (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it meets NGAELIC doesn't mean that it meets GNG and WP:PRIMARY. And it also doesn't meet those policies Equal width (C) 08:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As you note Equalwidth, NGAELIC doesn't confer "automatic" notability. It is just an indicator that WP:GNG might be met. That is true. However, and per my note above, it seems (to me) that WP:GNG *is* met in this case. Also, respectfully and considering that you are a very new editor, I would suggest that you re-read the WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY guidelines (as your continued assertions, that independent national and regional newspapers are to be considered "unreliable and primary sources", are not in keeping with my understanding of those guidelines). Guliolopez (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems like WP:GNG and WP:PRIMARY are not met in this case. Equal width (C) 10:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also do NOT consider myself a new editor. Thinking whether you are new to the project or not can change your Wikipedia behavior. Thinking that you are not a new editor when you have less than 200 (maybe 250) edits can make you more efficient than those who consider themselves new to the project in that edit milestone. Equal width (C) 10:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but your understanding of WP:PRIMARY is flawed - "accounts written by people who are directly involved" means you can't use a blog written by a player about the match s/he played. It absolutely does not exclude a local newspaper reporter's article on a match. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NGAELIC and WP:GNG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Al-Fadhel

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Marafee

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to North Korea national football team. Editors advocating Keep provide no sources helping to establish notabiity. Selecting a Redirect as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Song-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "남성철 국제 축구 site:.kp" turns up this [32], but I have no idea, short of translating the entire pdf to see if it talks about the person. I'm not fluent in Korean, I copied his name and used google translate for "international football", it gave me the Korean script that I plugged into Google, limiting it to North Korea websites... Weak keep? Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  North Korean literature is always flowery and uses a very positive tone, but it's all published by the government, so use with caution I suppose... Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  [33] 42 caps with the squad, I'd assume notable... Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So notable that the article has been hardly updated in over 10 years. Simione001 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Korea national football team, he is listed joint 9th all time appearances in the records section. Govvy (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sources are a database and a article about the team. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 43 international matches. Has articles in 18 other Wikis. Can you say WP:BIAS? Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Nfitz. Definetly has offline sourrces. Clearly significant figure in North Korean football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is he? How do you know that? Nothing but pure speculation that there are offline sources. No one has provided any evidence that the article satisfies WP:GNG other than to say he has 43 appearances for the national team which alone doesn't meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't know if there is "bias", I just know that we can't rely on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES especially for BLPs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the main athletes in the history of football in North Korea, a very different case from other athletes nominated for elimination with few appearances/lack of information. Svartner (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems like a case of WP:ILIKEIT.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually no, it's not a matter of personal preference by my part. Just a comparison with other articles about North Korean footballers who were nominated for elimination, which in the majority have little information and almost none made by clubs. This case has some achievements that are above: participation in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, +40 international appearances. At the level of North Korean football, he is undeniably an athlete with much more relevance than the others. So in this case, I think deleting the article without other alternatives beforehand in terms of improvements sounds a forceful. Svartner (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - What information? The article is totally devoid of any details or sources relating to the subject. Nor has anybody in this discussion provided any. Simione001 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE showed nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Keep votes provide no sources, just ILIKEIT personal opinons. // Timothy :: talk 03:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floripes Dornellas de Jesus

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

This article seems to fail WP:GNG; all biographical information I can find about this person is from non-reliable and/or Catholic sources and there seems to be no reliable mainstream reporting on her and her purported miracle. Nerdy314 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Servants of God, the first step on the road to canonisation, are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing the matter with Catholic sources when we're talking about a Catholic woman on the path to sainthood. Appears notable: pilgrimage site, celebration of her day, etc. PamD 13:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. restored article. I'd appreciate some of you adding this article to your Watchlist to prevent any future hijackings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sabourin

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

No indication of passing WP:GNG of WP:NPEOPLE, most substantial part of article was a copyvio and I can find no indication of notability in a BEFORE search. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 02:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Psychology. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 02:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There has been some article hijacking going on here — the article is supposed to be about a French pathologist and pulmonologist, but was changed to be about a Canadian artist (I'd have linked to the actual diff of the change, but that was also the addition of the copyvio)… and this has happened before. No opinion on the merits of the article on the original subject, but I can't imagine there's any notability for the Canadian artist… at best there should be a reversion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch I do believe my point about the notability still stands even with the prior versions of the article. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 13:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Medicine, France, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article to 19th C pathologist, and keep it for the moment. If anyone wants to nominate it for AfD they're welcome, but we shouldn't delete a 19th C scientist merely because someone's decided to nick their article for a Canadian artist. Go that way and I can get Charles Darwin deleted by hijacking the article to write about my dog, Darwin. Elemimele (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article to 19th C pathologist. Agree with Elemimele, and add that the article has been hijacked (badly) twice by Charlesab2 in 2018 and 2023. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now the article it is restored to an article about a French pathologist, I have added 2 more citations. I can't find a reference to where he went to school or when he opened his clinic, but have referenced birth and death and the hospital named in his honor. How should we proceed now? vote on the pathologist's article? Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Restored Version about the 19th century pathologist. References have been vastly improved over the unreferenced biography that was originally nominated for deletion. Elspea756 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we should Keep Restored Version about the 19th century pathologist as well, but don't know how best to add or change my vote from Restore to Keep Restored Version. Guidance requested. Thanks --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Fear the Walking Dead characters#Dwight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight (The Walking Dead)

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

Another minor TWC character with a very lengthy plot summary and reception that is limited to a single listicle mention: "Noel Murray of Rolling Stone ranked Dwight 22nd in a list of 30 best Walking Dead characters, saying [few sentneces]". This is far cry from what is needed per WP:GNG. Per ATD, redirecting this to the list of characters from the franchise should be all we need. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is appropriate for Fandom, not Wikipedia. Redirect to the list of Walking Dead characters as per nomination, as Dwight doesn't appear to be independently notable from the series.
Redirect This character does not have nearly enough SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fear the Walking Dead characters#Dwight. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, personally I don't think it is redirecting it as there really isn't anything to preserve.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources with nothing to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Nominator withdrawn their nomination. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ziarat Hissar Baba

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

I am slightly convinced that this village is made up. I looked through a government database and the village did not appear. Sources seem sketchy, I see TikTok more than any villages. There is also no Cebuano translation which makes it slightly more shaky. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found and added 2 references to the article – it's a village in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan with 408 households and a population of 3700 per 2017 Census of Pakistan shown on Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website. The other reference, Digital South Asia Library, Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 17, p.72 is for Utman Khel tribe living in Malakand Agency...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator's comments above were taken in good humor. This article was created by someone in 2016. A lot of articles back then were accepted UNREFERENCED by Wikipedia, as we all know...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to new sources being found, I have struck out my nomination. However, if these sources are referring it as only Hissar Baba, the article should be renamed to reflect this change. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 01:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. JBW (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ui-guk Kim

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

Fails GNG. I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources that have significant coverage of the subject from a BEFORE search, and the only source that is in the article currently is unreliable. Tails Wx 01:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Tails Wx 01:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, I added another citation for this information, I hope this is enough to allow for it to stay up. Yuri Iluliaq (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source, FamilySearch, isn't a reliable source either. Tails Wx 02:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP:A7, besides no indication of notability anyway 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Yep, no consensus. I hope that those hard-working editors who did so much legwork to find out information about this building can add their discoveries to the article. That step often doesn't happen after an AFD closes and I hope this will be the exception. Thanks to all participants for taking consideration of this artice seriously and doing their due diligence even if they disagree on the result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Manor

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

Basically WP:PROMO. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Forbes contributor piece [34], a small mention in Nat Geographic [35], a gay-friendly hotel listing [36] and a train derailment nearby [37], none of which help notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be ok with a redirect to "Key West Historic District", of which it seems to be a component. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a hard one. There's WP:COI around the article's creation and the website points back here [38]. There are references to Miami Herald and Key West Citizen that might help, but we have to verify the articles and see if they are beyond a passing glance. The article can be fixed up to remove the promotional tone and anything not NPOV that can be dealt outside of this AfD. I did find out there's a historical marker at the place [39], so it seems searching should include the name The Samuel O. Johnson House. The building is located within the Key West Historic District ~~but it appears no historic nomination has been made for the manor.~~[40] [41] and was added when the boundary was increased in 1983. [42] [43] (page 121). I'm going with a weak keep. – The Grid (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO. COI authorship of article. Not used in National Register application to expand district. Florida historic marker sponsored/placed by the property. No historic events or notable historic people (at least none with Wikipedia articles) cited. Citations don't show general notability. In fact, newspaper citations are worthless since they link to the Wikipedia articles about the two newspapers, not to articles about the property. They could be anything, including advertising. Redirect won't work. Brief description of historic district as a whole and list of properties with links to articles; no content about individual properties. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather perplexing.
- I provided a citation that shows the property is at the very least listed and included in the boundary expansion. The classification provided was conforming. See page 27 of the pdf. Of course there's not much content provided but this provides some basic information from NRHP.
- Florida historic markers are going to show as sponsored/placed by the property. It's a public-private partnership that will also be sponsored by the area's tourism agency. That does not negate the information that is provided on them. It looks like the historical markers of the Key West Historic Walking Tours are sponsored by the Key West Art & Historical Society. [44] top bar Historical Markers, Inc. maintains them. For this item, it looks like both entities provide the historical information on their website [45] [46]. I don't know how more "official" I can make this.
- For the news articles, that's where we have to verify them. I give benefit of the doubt for them to be pure advertising because it's from the 1950s and 1960s. I'll see if I can find the articles in question. – The Grid (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional comment and information on Florida historic markers. I will check back in a few days at most to see what else you may be able to add. Donner60 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, I am staying with my original comment of Delete. The citation to the NRHP document failed verification by me. The property on that page (27) is not the Old Town Manor. Simply being an old building within a historic district is not enough to show that it is notable. The house, as the Samuel O. Johnson house is on the cited Key West Historical marker tour. However, I don't see the information as making the house notable for Wikipedia. No occurrences or activities of historic note are shown. The previous owners are not shown to be notable simply by being referenced on a historical marker as previous owners who conducted businesses at the house or had a nice garden. This type of activity by owners is not uncommon for old houses and does not make it notable.

I don't see this house listed on the Key West Art & Historical Society historical markers page or any of the walking tours either. The page lists 125 historical markers and I think it is significant that this house is not listed. (If I am missing it under another name, let me know in reply.) In summary, I don't see any historic notability for this house outside of it being in the district.
We also know that this was one of several B&Bs which followed instructions on a YouTube page on how to evade Wikipedia requirements and to publish a promo article. The promotional/advertising nature of the article is apparent. Others may differ based on the historical marker, I suppose. As time passes it is beginning to seem unlikely there will be many additional. (I am not sure whether old listings may actually attract a few more comments.) If I have computed it correctly, this will be passing into the older Afds category tomorrow. I will check back again in a few days and will re-read the marker information to see if I should give it more weight if this AfD is still open. Donner60 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through its address: 511 Eaton Avenue. Its first existence was the home of Samuel O. Johnson in 1886. I was looking beyond the name of Old Town Manor for my research above and used Eaton Lodge as well. I knew looking through Old Town Mayor would get into circular sourcing. I couldn't find anything through the newspapers which sucks. It just seems there is information here with The Samuel O. Johnson, Eaton Lodge, and Old Town Lodge but then the Old Town Manor renaming and owners add promotional language to the information that could perhaps be salvaged. – The Grid (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I imagine this will end up as no consensus (and I have no prejudice if it's brought through AfD again). I can comb through the article and copyedit a lot of the promotional language. The focus of the article on the "Old Town Manor" is a blip on the structure's history. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too failed to find this in the NRHP link, but I'm not used to searching there. The first occupant, Samuel Otis Johnson, does not appear notable per lack of non-paid obituaries in newspaper search. I did find 51 hits in newspaper search for "511 Eaton Street" +Florida. The first few hits show that by the 1920s it was owned by the Warren family (particularly Dr William R. Warren), who appear to have been locally notable in 1920s to at least the mid-1950s; eg The Key West Citizen 23 Sep 1947, Page 6 gives a long account of George Allen Warren's marriage, which includes a little info on the family. There's a brief note that John Allen Long designed the interior (The Key West Citizen 18 Feb 1938, Page 2) and something about an orchid (unfortunately didn't note the ref). Searching on "William Richard Warren" finds an authored piece on Mrs William Richard Warren (Myrtle Cosgrove (10 Jan 1940). Key West Women: Their Homes and Gardens. The Key West Citizen, Page 4) which calls her garden "one of the beauty spots of the island" and says "her home is a center of both social and cultural things." It definitely was a private house c. 1956, so earlier newspaper articles are probably acceptable sources. By 1987 it is an inn under the name Eaton Lodge, owned by Samuel Maxell; there's a promo piece that might be partly editorial, in Fort Lauderdale News (30 Aug 1987, page 410), which implies it is included in Humm's Guide to Key West. Proquest searches under various keywords gave "one of the more attractive inns, a dignified Victorian house in the middle of a tropical garden" in the NYT (Walter Logan. WHAT'S DOING IN KEY WEST. New York Times 31 Jan 1982: A.10.) I think a diligent search of local newspapers and books (eg trying to find obits for Dr William R. Warren and his wife) might well unearth enough coverage. If it is kept, it should be retitled probably to "511, Eaton Street". Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Google Books finds lots of hits; including [47] which has a 2-page spread on Eaton Lodge (pp53–54), which looks to be where a lot of the article comes from. Also several separate accounts of ghosts eg [48]. Also, can't access, but Makers of America has several pages on William Richard Warren (pp. 349–353). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming no consensus due to few, if any, additional comments, I can support a "no consensus, keep" result. I do this on the basis of accepting that The Grid and Espresso Addict will make the revisions and improvements that they mention in their comments. I must add that I still think the subject of the article as it stands is not notable and is promotional. However, I trust that these editors will make satisfactory additions and revisions to make it worth keeping. Donner60 (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samer Jundi

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Only a passing mention made, no Arabic sources found either that is GNG-noteworthy. Tails Wx 02:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jein-Wei Yeh

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

Notability not establshed per WP:PROF FULBERT (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is usually cited as "Yeh, J.W." Here is a link to his GoogleScholar profile[49]. It shows h-index of 94 with over 10 paper having 1000+ citations each and the top-cited paper having over 10,000 citations. Even for a high citation engineering field these are extremely high numbers, indicating a likely pass of WP:PROF#C1/ Nsk92 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I'm pretty sure "NTHU Chair Professor" [50] also passes #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability would seem to exist through PROF C1, per David. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Precup

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

There is no indication that the subject is in any way notable. He’s not notable per WP:POLITICIAN — never elected, and one of 200 appointed state secretaries, the vast majority of whom are not notable. He’s not notable per WP:PROF — there’s no indication he meets any notability criterion for academics. And he’s not notable per WP:ANYBIO, as I will explain.
The article includes three references that are even vaguely independent and in-depth.
- This, from the tabloid-y Economica, was published after he got his PhD from the Sorbonne and belongs to a time-honored genre: articles about Romanians who make good abroad. Given that its very title talks about what he hopes to do, it can safely be dismissed as a bit of crystalballing puffery.
- This is a routine news item published when he was first hired as state secretary. Aside from mentioning his failed candidacy on behalf of a minor party (a detail that, strangely, did not make it into his article, authored by a single-purpose account), the background information is entirely sourced to his own website, which surely speaks to his level of notability.
- This, from the arch-tabloid Antena 3, is another boilerplate item that appeared when he was sent from one bureaucracy to another. It’s largely sourced to a couple of quotes by the subject himself, who seems rather adept at self-promotion, but doesn’t seem to have many independent figures asserting his notability.
(To underscore just how routine the hiring of a state secretary is in the press, see here and here and here and here and here.)
In conclusion, there is simply no case for notability to be made here, as demonstrated by a close analysis of the sources presented. — Biruitorul ^Talk 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politicians, Finance, Economics, France, Luxembourg, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regarding sources:
- We have 90-100 pages citing Economica
- We have 550-600 pages citing Antena 3 CNN
- See Antena 3 CNN#Controversies, in particular the footnoted references.

I previously removed the proposed deletion notice based on web translations of those two news sites. At the time, I found Antena 3's affiliation with CNN reassuring but after reading about the site's recent history and Biruitorul's comments, I'm not so sure. On the other hand, I see that the two sites have been widely cited here and I could find no previous discussions of either site's reliability in the Wikipedia namespace. If those two sites are reliable sources, I see this subject as notable. Otherwise, I don't see anything else establishing notability. I accept that a Romanian state secretary is not in itself a notable position; our decision should be based on reliable sources.

I would expect Mihai Prehup to have a Romanian Wikipedia article and he does: ro:Mihai Precup.^{(Google translation: [51])} It's tagged for notability.

I am undecided pending others' comments.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn’t cite Antena 3: whatever facts they may have to report are also reported by other, less problematic, sources. But that isn’t really the point. The main point is that the level of coverage — “economic expert gets appointed to fairly routine economic post” — is simply not indicative of notability, regardless of who’s reporting it. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe in the future more sources about this person will appear, but right now they don't seem notable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to City Bureau. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Chang

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

Not notable. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG thresholds for notability. Only one of the sources in the article might be a GNG source (see assessment table below), and I was not able to find any better sources myself. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table by Actualcpscm:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://medium.com/innsights/how-three-women-journalist-leaders-channeled-legacy-newsroom-experiences-into-creating-healthier-d788a935e385		WP:MEDIUM	~ Almost nothing except for direct quotations from her	✘ No
https://robertfeder.dailyherald.com/2019/05/10/powerful-women-chicago-journalism-2019-edition/		Personal blog		✘ No
https://www.taiwaneseamerican.org/next100/people/bettina-chang/	Interview	~		✘ No
https://niemanreports.org/articles/how-journalists-of-color-are-redefining-newsroom-culture/		~ Published in Opinion section, reliability unclear		~ Partial
https://www.ted.com/talks/bettina_chang_maslow_s_pyramid_fake_news_and_the_future_of_journalism		~		✘ No
https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/11/04/the-media-rumble-interview-bettina-chang-on-collaborative-journalism	Interview	~		✘ No
https://www.rcfp.org/awardsdinner2019/				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Illinois. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the source assessment table, nothing for notability. I can't find much else. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. The article now has 13 independent citations about the notability of Chang's work, including the Columbia Journalism Review, NiemanLab and Politico. I believe this shows that the subject meets the thresholds for notability. --Angshah (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to City Bureau for now based on available sources, WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST, and content that could be moved from her article. The 2019 Politico Magazine source has a focus on City Bureau, with some interview and observation of her at work; the 2016 CJR source and 2019 CJR source seem similar in focus on City Bureau with brief quotes from her; I think the Nieman Reports 2018 opinion source is independent, reliable, and secondary support for her notability, but usage in the article is limited by the WP:RSOPINION guideline; the 2019 RCFP award is shared with the other City Bureau founders, and the other cited accolades do not appear to contribute much to notability. Her notable work seems more effectively presented in the context of the City Bureau article; coverage in Politico, CFR, and Nieman Reports, as well as a Rising Star award from the RCFP does not seem to sufficient to establish City Bureau as a significant or well-known work nor a collective body of work per WP:JOURNALIST#3, and independent coverage of Chang in available sources, including based on my own search, seems too limited to develop a reasonably balanced biography at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my !vote to a redirect, because the City Bureau article seems to be a well-supported target and this would preserve the article history; if content is copied from this article, it can be attributed according to WP:COPYWITHIN. Beccaynr (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At bare minimum, merge into City Bureau, but my vote is for keep. I say this just having done a rewrite of the article — which can be checked out here ([52]) — and rearranged and better supported elements of the bio which could have been expressed more thoroughly from the works being cited, which was more from a general readability standpoint than a notability one. The idea that Chang isn't notable even despite the WP:GOOG-ness of it all is a little ridiculous to me. I'm not pulling a WP:CRYSTALBALL, not at all, because it's clear she already has jumped the hurdle for secondary coverage. I can understand not wanting to break out a joint accomplishment or project into an individual one, but just based on a cursory search, she's the mouthpiece of City Bureau, has been since it started, and is now the executive director. Personally, because she's a journalist of color in an executive and co-founder role for a remarkably successful nonprofit newsroom (that was the first of its kind [53]), I'm still a pretty strong keep. I'm a much stronger don't delete. ɯɐɔ 💬 04:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the things you mention are accepted thresholds or criteria for notability, though. A Google search for her name yields mostly pieces written by her, which are not appropriate for establishing notability, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to with that. Similarly, a high-level role in a „nonprofit newsroom“ doesn‘t necessarily indicate notability for our purposes. You mention that she has „already jumped the hurdle for secondary coverage“; what sources are you referring to here? It‘d be great if you could provide your WP:THREE. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 08:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep --Dunny (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.158.82 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an attempt at WP:HEYMANN Lets look at it.

Ref 1 is a passing mention.

Ref 5 states it edited by Betttina Chang

Ref 8 Is another passing mention.

Ref 9 Unable to see this properly on newspapers.com but seem from the size its another passing mention.

Ref 10 Another passing mention.

Ref 11 nothing here.

Ref 12 Nothing here either.

I removed reference 1 as its non-rs. An unreliable source. That is the first two references blocks covered. So in combination with the source analysis table above, it is plain to see there is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot. This is therefore delete. There is barely even a primary source. Chang is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG.MaskedSinger (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City Bureau as a plausible search term per WP:ATD. The subject is mentioned there. ✗plicit 00:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snapdocs

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY. The only SIGCOV I could find was about its Series C and D fundraises. Not enough to establish notability (every company that raises a Series D is not notable) Longhornsg (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The company is not notable, and the sources are weak e.g. TechCrunch is, as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources, not to be used to determine notability.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Machine

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable exercise product. While the product definitely exists, it does not appear to be the subject of sufficient independent sigcov to pass WP:GNG. Previous deletion discussion was 18 years ago, and did not contain much reference to WP policies. Jdcooper (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Products, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's sourced to three journals, they seem ok. What's our issue with them? Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be about the science behind this commercial product, rather than the product itself (except one). Jdcooper (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think with the peer-reviewed journals, we're at least at notability. Better than some PR pieces we see here for other products. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The last journal article cited does not mention the product at all – it is actually is a note from the editorial team of the journal stating that, with respect to the first article cited, exuberance in reporting is evident along with some "cherry-picking" of the data (i.e., underemphasis of non-supporting data), non-parametic statistical analysis, or even a lack of statistically analyzed data., and that with respect to the article being published in their journal at all: Whereas Lymphology's main focus is to publish original, scientifically sound, evidence-based articles of interest to our readers, we recognize both the explosion of alternative/complementary treatment modalities used by patients and prescribed by physicians and other heath care practitioners worldwide and also the importance of informing and stimulating lymphologists and related specialists to examine and reflect on these practices. Based on this editorial I will assume that the first article cited is unreliable and not discuss it further. The second article (notably by the same authors as the first) is a primary source and so should generally not be used as a basis for biomedical content per WP:MEDRS – there are no remaining sources with which to support a claim to notability present in the article, and I cannot find any in my own search, so it does not appear the article meets GNG. I would always err on the side of removal of biomedical content which is poorly sourced anyways as it has the potential for actual harm – with the only substantive content in the article being poorly sourced removing it would leave the article with no useful information. Courtesy ping for Oaktree b, who appears to have based his reasoning on the assumption that the articles were reliable. Tollens (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We have only one source, and as laid out above, it appears to be unreliable, and the article possibly even promotional. Cortador (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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