Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neha Singh Rathore (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Contopidis}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Contopidis}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ}}

Revision as of 14:11, 22 February 2024

< February 21 February 23 >

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Singh Rathore

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

Non notable singer, no in-depth articles. There is nothing apart from 'FIR news' and 'UP Me Ka Ba?' Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) sources added Beccaynr (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC); sources added Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC); two cite dates fixed, moved for list chronology Beccaynr (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Contopidis

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

The Lübecker Nachrichten source is the only one out there for this person which is usable for notability purposes. What little other coverage he has appears to mostly be in primary sources and/or reconstitued from press releases. Does not have a dewiki article. Mach61 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ

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

Small and largely irrelevant group which is unrecognised by any major Christiand denomination. Most of the sources are self-sources and those who are not don't justify an article on Wikipedia. I move for deletion Karma1998 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I motion to keep, because it is referenced in The Detroit News, the Archdiocese of Detroit, and Aleteia. These news articles provide the argument that this group is relevant, despite its size. At that rate, some U.S. settlement articles which have only less than 100 residents should be culled by that same measure; they won't, however, because despite their seeming irrelevance, they are properly sourced through the U.S. Census Bureau. Only 2 sources are self-sourced in this article. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per significant coverage in the following sources:
  • "Rebel priest strikes out on his own". The Modesto Bee. 2014-07-06. pp. G2. Retrieved 2024-02-22. (this was a syndicated article that appeared in many US papers)
  • "Church merger brings leaders to city". Niagara Falls Review. 2007-10-27. p. 17. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
  • Terek, Donna. "Unusual church in no-man's land welcomes everyone". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
  • "I did not want to live a lie, says former Catholic priest who opted to marry". Nation. 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
Jfire (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. But deletion can be undone if other sources are brought forward. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sisante Wind Farm

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

A very short unsourced article with barely any information. This wind farm might exist, but i cannot to find any sources which would confirm that it actually does. Jexio (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've had a look at the sources you provided. Keeping in mind that the nominated article was written in 2007 and talks about a 196MW wind farm.
  1. The article is from 2021 and talks about 3 installations near Sisante with a combined capacity of 148 megawatt. This is much lower than the claimed 196MW.
  2. Is about a 49.5 MW wind farm in Sisante consisting of 33 wind turbines.
  3. The article is from 2018 and talks about a future 300MW wind farm. The location as described in the source matches with this one on OpenStreetMap: [1], which according to there was commissioned in 2022 and is not actually located in Sisante.
  4. This matches with a group of wind turbines here: [2] However, there is no mention of the installed capacity of the wind farm. Only that they use "a section of real wind farm located in Spain featuring 115 turbines." for their simulations.

None of the sources you gave seem to support the claim that there exists a 196MW wind farm located near Sisante. Only that there are various wind turbines and wind farms in that area of Spain. Together they might add up to 200MW, but none of the given sources actually confirm that. Jexio (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/merge if there is suitable target Why didn't this get a prod first? I don't see one in it's history. I think it's moot to argue it's existence or nonexistence. This is about the article, and the state of this nominated article is not encyclopedic #Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Based on what I saw, this one subject will not make an acceptable article. What should have happened was that somebody should have written an encyclopedic article about wind power in Spain, they could then list various wind farms in that article. But we don't need one line articles about individual wind farms on Wikipedia.James.folsom (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterparts (novel)

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

Work of dubious relevance by a minor author. The only reason the page was created was due to the recent death of the author and the political fuss connected to it (Lira died while he was detained by the Ukrainian authorities due to his pro-Russian activities) Karma1998 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an advance is fine, but doesn't get you a wikipedia article. The "ample coverage" used now in the article is rather thin to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Being the subject of two non-trivial published works is what gets a book its own article. Your opinion of the author or of Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews is irrelevant, and further beset by the multiple reviews already sourced in the article and alluded to below. Οἶδα (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NBOOK, plus above. Honestly I'm surprised the standards for book notability are as seemingly low as they are. Some are shorter "capsule" ones which don't really count but there seem to be several that are longer, decently in depth ones. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "low" standards are well established and the result of a multitude of discussion spanning well over a decade, and not the oversight you may perceive it to be. You are free to express your surprise at the relevant talk page, because it is frankly irrelevant to the discussion here. Οἶδα (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but I'm not complaining about it. Just surprised. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing. Apologies if my tone was at all uncharitable, I just wanted to hit on that point given the weak rationale belying this entire nomination and the already imposing distraction of the author on this article's merit and existence. I always appreciate to hear other perspectives! Οἶδα (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBOOK, which depends on "two or more non-trivial published works" about the book, including reviews. The Orlando Sentinel review is 7 paragraphs long, the Newsday review is 4 paragraphs, and the San Francisco Examiner is 3 paragraphs, in addition to the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Above, Oaktree b says that "every book out there" has Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews — there are a lot of aspiring authors who wish that were true. Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jfire. The article not only passes WP:NBOOK but exceeds it, as Toughpigs outlined above. This nomination is patently in bad faith because the author was a controversial figure. I strongly suggest that users like Karma1998 and Oaktree b familiarise themselves with the clear and longstanding notability guidelines for books before making a nomination like this or rationalising it. I didn't know of this figure until recently but one quick glance at his wiki page and its extensive deletion nomination history can tell you why this sort of AfD was engendered. Please do not try to weasel out of basic guidelines because you have feelings about the author (aka not the subject of the article being nominated for deletion) or about why and when this article was created. Οἶδα (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons above, Lira's coverage in Chile because of the book was significant, he was referred to as "the highest paid Chilean writer in the world" (Que Pasa magazine) [6] and "the million dollar man" (El Mercurio, Chile's newspaper of record) [7] JSwift49 13:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can see this being merged to author Gonzalo Lira eventually. Newsday is a group review and there is a single paragraph on the book—it is a capsule review. The Orlando Sentinel has a brief review similar in length to The San Francisco Examiner. (Saying Orlando is "seven paragraphs" when the paragraphs are in column format, i.e., they're two- or three-sentence paragraphs.) Both cover only some basic detail and cannot be used as a basis for an article. I would be advocating for merger and summary style coverage if it weren't for the Spanish-language blurbs, which are also short. PW and Kirkus are librarian trade publications that review widely and inclusion there does not confer notability. Once all of this material is summarized, I would be surprised it amounts to more than two succinct paragraphs, which can be amply covered in the context of the author's biography. czar 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the general requirements for notability on Wikipedia. (NB- I moved the page to Main when it was draftified some time ago). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Magazine

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

Cannot find any sources. (Note there is also a magazine called CRN (magazine) by The Channel Company. IgelRM (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panthers–Seahawks rivalry

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

This article describes a non-existent rivalry between two teams who were simultaneously competitive briefly during the mid-2010s. Nothing has changed since this article was deleted in 2020 (though I do not think WP:G4 applies, this article was created by a different user who was not on Wikipedia in 2020). The references fail WP:GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry. All are WP:ROUTINE coverage except this Rolling Stone article which explains the teams "could become" a great rivalry (with no follow-up that such a rivalry was established). Frank Anchor 13:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, North Carolina, and Washington. Frank Anchor 13:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete not an actual rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 13:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not an actual rivalry. The Rolling Stone article is from 2016, evidently nothing emerged. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources are from 2016 and merely suggest that a rivalry could hypothetically develop, but there is no substantive evidence that it actually exists or ever existed. This agrees with the deleted 2020 version of the article: In 2016, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll claimed the Panthers were not a rival. USA Today claimed in 2019 that a rivalry no longer existed between the two teams and a Seahawks USA Today blog in 2019 gave the Panthers only an honourable mention for biggest rivals, saying "this isn't too much of a rivalry." Beyond that, this is nothing but a matchup log hardly worth its own article. --Kinu t/c 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Did a quick search and found the Rollin Stones article, but we do not WP:CRYSTALBALL about rivalries. They either exist with WP:SIGCOV or they don't. Conyo14 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As the nom mentioned, the sources are all routine coverage for the NFL. There's not enough here to show that there's actually a rivalry. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: none of the cited sources are centered on a "rivalry" between the teams. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Lam (artist)

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

Possibly promotion materials. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericliu1912 I had created a discussion about this particular, thank you! Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to To the Faithful Departed. ✗plicit 14:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Just Shot John Lennon

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

Fails WP:NSONG. There are no claims of notability, no charts, no awards, and no independent sources. Suggest redirecting to To the Faithful Departed. Courtesy ping to Woozybydefault and GB fan, who should stop reverting each other and make detailed statements on this AfD report. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to To the Faithful Departed: Only found brief mentions of the song in reviews of the album. Saw no signs of notability just as ResolutionsPerMinute said. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, Woozybydefault, while I agree with you that the subject is non-notable, that was an inappropriate usage of speedy deletion, and no reason needs to be explicitly stated for an editor's opposition to your deletion proposal to be valid. You should've started this AfD after the first reversion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Schwenningen, Sigmaringen. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schnaitkapf

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

No refs on the page for many years. The refs on de.wiki do not appear to meet the GNG here. I don't speak German but I'm not seeing much which could be considered in terms of notability. JMWt (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge as per either of the above Mr Vili talk 22:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different target articles suggested as a Redirect/Merge, can we settle on one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula 4 champions

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

Do we need another list of champions when these lists about championships all have their own listing, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN, in fact fails all requirements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dhaka First Division Cricket League. Aside: There is no listing of these clubs on the target article. Could some interested editor make that happen? Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Road Krira Chakra

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

PROD removed without addressing issues. This club carries no major historical significance, as reflected by the sources, failing WP:GNG. From a status perspective, it has not played major matches (List A matches) and so fails WP:NCRIC. AA (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same deletion rationale:

Kalindi Krira Chakra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lalmatia Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Udayachal Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kakrail Boys Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gulshan Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Azad Sporting Club cricket team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orient Sporting Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dhaka Spartans Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dhaka Assets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Surjo Torun Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Once you discard the !votes not based on policy or guidelines, views seem evenly split between Keep and Delete. Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation, as we're dealing with a BLP that falls under the auspices of WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, as some here correctly noted. This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface. The deletion is without prejudice against turning the page into a redirect to Andrew Tate, the appropriateness of which can be reviewed at RfD if disputed. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tate

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

Personally, I do not believe this article should be deleted, however I do believe it requires work. I have been a mostly uninvolved editor in the draft. There has been some disagreements on whether this page should exist, and I would like to have greater consensus from the community as a whole, rather than relying on opinions of singular editors Mr Vili talk 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Although I believe this article does need work and clean up, I believe Tristan Tate is a highly notable individual - it is true that he rose to fame along-side his brother, Andrew, however he also is a European kickboxing champion and has starred in a reality TV show. His criminal case is additionally extremely high profile. A simple search for "who is tristan tate" returns a number of high quality sources from places such as The Independent, Hindustan Times and others Mr Vili talk 09:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work as there are an unnecessary amount of unreliable sources, but he is clearly notable per WP:BASIC as I referenced in a previous discussion about this page, specifically multiple articles from RS with in-depth coverage of him, that are included in this article. Claims to the contrary sound unreasonable to me. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection of this article, it is a complete train wreck, even with less unreliable sources and enough notability for the subject.
  • For example, take a look at the WP:OPEN: "Tate, alongside his older brother Andrew, gained a notable internet following during 2022 by creating controversial content, promoting their online courses and appearing on podcasts. The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Sounds reasonable right? Until you check the sources. One of them is a random youtube video, GINX specifically states "Tristan Tate has largely supported his brother's takes, despite not being popularized for making similar claims himself." - which completely contradicts the claim in the lead.
  • Next line there are three sources for: "The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Only one of them mentions Tristan, specifically that "Tate and his brother Tristan were “raking in millions from webcam sites where men hand over a fortune as they fall for models’ fake sob stories” – something they themselves described as a “total scam”." - which has nothing to do with the claim.
  • Get to Online ventures; During the summer of 2022, Tate and his brother amassed a huge following on social media, both promoting an "ultra-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle". The Tate's content has been accused of being misogynistic by critics like Hope not Hate, an anti-extremism group, which has said that the Tates' social media presence may present a "dangerous slip road into the far-right" for their audience., then check the source... there is no mention of Tristan what so ever, Tristan's name has just been rammed into a description of Andrew.
In summary, from what I've seen (and given up trying to improve), it's full of WP:OR and the majority deserves to be deleted, as the sources do not back up the bold claims being made. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to add some additional RS I've found tomorrow, and ensure the various sections are validly sourced - I have not really edited the article before. Mr Vili talk 12:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm not opposed to keep, but based on it's current state and what I've seen I can't support it for now, even if the article certainly deserves to exist based on notability. I imagine the criminal investigation section has similar issues to what I already came across, generally sources not supporting the claims. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some additional sources and statements, particularly towards the lead section. Mr Vili talk 13:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor In terms of the sources where Tristan Tate is not explicitly mentioned, I still believe they are valid sources in the context of documenting the ongoing case, as it is inferred that Tristan Tate is involved in the same case as Andrew Tate - I don't see why every article must reference him directly, as long as there are other valid sources on his article that cover him in depth (which there are). Mr Vili talk 13:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I'm not seeing how this is a "clearly meets" situation without further elaboration. Would you be willing to expand, addressing WP:BIO1E and the depth of coverage in the sources available? VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is beginning to feel like badgering. You've already made your opinion abundantly clear. The closer will sort out the proper weight to give !votes. Central and Adams (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the article is looking a bit better now. I've added some sources, the only section I have not looked deeply into yet is the criminal case section yet however so perhaps someone else could handle that as I'm off for the night. Mr Vili talk 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It sounds like this nomination is intended to attract help with editing an article, which isn't what the AfD process is for. Please check out WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ATA. The subject of the article is obviously notable, and meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage by reliable sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Removing my vote, this whole discussion is a mess, and I don't want to be part of it. -- Toughpigs[reply]

  • Delete, but I wouldn't be bothered if it was keep. Tate is only in the news for being arrested alongside his brother. Outside of that, none of the sources seem to show notability. Also I'm still irritated that you dragged me all the way to dispute resolution because I wouldn't accept your draft (when you could have simply asked someone else for a different opinion)
All the sources that address him are WP:BLP1E or unreliable. He got arrested with his more notable brother. Outside of that arrest for the one thing he did, there is no coverage, unlike with his brother PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
1 - possibly unreliable fight stats? don't count for notability
2 - seo/spam/nonsense
3 - part of their notability for human trafficking, BLP1E already covered by Andrew's page
4 - seo/spam/nonsense
5 - unreliable
6 - unreliable
7 - about his brother
8 - seo/spam/nonsense
9 - seo/spam/nonsense
10 - seo/spam/nonsense
11 - unreliable
12 - unreliable
13 - about his brother, mentions him in passing
14 - about his father, mentions him in passing
15 - about his brother, mentions him in passing
16 - connected to Tate, doesn't count for notability
17 - seo/spam/nonsense
18 - seo/spam/nonsense
19 - seo/spam/nonsense
20 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
21 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
22 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
23 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
24 - about the human trafficking, BLP1E applies
25 - about his brother, mentions him in passing
26 - decent
27 - seo/spam/nonsense
He got accused of sex trafficking. That's the only reason he's ever made it into reliable sources. Not enough to warrant a page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not a fan of this article in it's current state, it's simply not true that all the sources are one event. Significant coverage has also been a profile of him a month after his arrest [12] followed by being charged [13]. That's two events and a profile (multiple reliable sources), so by definition can't be "one event". I assume you're referring to the current investigation being one event; his arrest, detention and charges, but that would be WP:BLP3E which doesn't exist. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still part of the overarching "event" (being accused of human trafficking). BLP1E doesn't have a time part on when the supposed "event" ends as far as I can tell. We don't have articles on every notorious murderer outside of their case, even if their trial extends the "event". If the person is notable for it, it's still BLP1E, from my understanding PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my understanding of an "event" was probably misinformed them, given that Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event., so even a profile of him is within the event, as that was arguably the context. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is confusing and kind of vague on the circumstances in which it doesn't apply, so I can't blame you, but I think this is one case where it does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Andrew Tate. This article is such a puffy mess that it would be better to delete it and start over, but I don't think the underlying subject is sufficiently notable regardless. There's a great deal of trivial coverage and lots of unreliable sourcing (including unreliable sourcing cited within this BLP!), but I'm not seeing SIGCOV beyond a bit of bio material connected to the arrest. VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude there's literally sources talking about his hair transplant like he's a celebrity, how is that not GNG Mr Vili talk 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think "Hairpalace blog" is a reliable source than you have no business editing any article. It also isn't WP:SIGCOV. VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a hair transplantation clinic in Hungary talking about him in their blog seems like a reliable source about him having a hair transplant - obviously that is not enough to be the basis of an article but it clearly seems like an "expert" reliable source in the context of his hair.
There is a number of sources specifically talking about his hair [14] [15] [16] Mr Vili talk 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are never reliable sources. They are WP:SELFPUB. Part of being a reliable source is having professional writers with professional editors who do checking of the content. This is what "published" refers to in WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent source linked does not contain significant depth of coverage as would be required to meet GNG. It also doesn't address 1E concerns given that it's about the subject's arrest. Can you clarify what sources in the article or elsewhere meet GNG? VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Independent source contributes to meeting the GNG. Can you clarify why in the world anyone could think otherwise? What fringe interpretation of the GNG yields the conclusion that an entire article in an RS explicitly dedicated to the subject isn't relevant to meeting the GNG? As far as me clarifying what sources, well, it's obvious enough that the Reuters and the UK do. Central and Adams (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on every single high profile criminal when we have articles on their crimes instead? No, because they're only notable for the crimes. All of the reliable coverage is in relation to the crime. That is all he is notable for, there's no reason to have a separate article that duplicates it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Obviously we take high profile criminals on a case by case basis, as we're doing now. Central and Adams (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the case by case basis part, but there are no reliable sources that go in depth on him beyond an offhand mention that "he was in a reality tv show ten years ago and has a more famous brother". There's not enough discussion on him in reliable, independent sources.
The policy exists for a reason, and when there's nothing we can source to reliable independent sources on the guy besides "he is accused of a crime" and it's already duplicated in another article, why have an article for any reason besides the sake of having one? There's nothing gained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Central and Adams: no, it is not so obvious to me that no further defense than "of course" is needed. The Independent source has markedly little to say about the subject. Specifically, it says: that he was arrested, is less famous than his brother. From there everything is just copypasta from his intagram and other PR sources that we see repeated over and over in the sources presented from the social media/PR echo chamber. There is zero depth here, and it's a great example of insignificant coverage. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're arguing that it's not sufficient to have coverage in an RS but that the sources used by the RS also have to be RS? What's this based on? If an RS chooses to source info from Insta that's good enough for us. It's just that we don't source directly from Insta. It's a whole article on the guy in an RS. Of course it's significant. Central and Adams (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters. WP:RS notes, Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. If a source publishes a puff piece that copies other PR puff pieces in format and content, we can use our common sense to observe that it probably didn't go through a lot of deep fact checking. How about this: what are the three pieces of coverage, independent of the one event of the trafficking accusations, that convinced you that reliable sigcov exists? VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Editorial judgment is the result of discussions, which we're having now. We disagree but, as you admit, it's a matter of opinion rather than of direct application of policy. With regard to your question it's nonsense. Why should there be sources "independent of the one event"? You're either misreading the meaning of independent sources or else misapplying BLP1E. Why don't you explain why three such sources are necessary, in your opinion, to meet GNG? Also, why three? Two is standard for GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, name two. I see zero. Independent to resolve WP:BIO1E concerns (not "misapplying BLP1E"); if the subject's only coverage is related to arrest then it makes more sense to cover the arrest at Andrew Tate. VQuakr (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the word "independent" in BIO1E. It seems to me that you're reaching. What I see is that the existence of a separate article is a matter for editorial judgment, which is the result of discussion, which is what we're doing here. Central and Adams (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. I'm not reaching, I'm applying the guideline. Independent sourcing is necessary to determine if there is sufficient weight of coverage separate from the event. VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources are about him in relation to one event, which is already covered on Wikipedia. Textbook WP:BLP1E PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently untrue. Some of the sources discuss his television career. Central and Adams (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In significant detail? No. The story is first about the crimes, and an offhand mention that he did something else a decade ago is not significant coverage of his non-crime activities. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindustan Times has an article about how he's the Batman of our times that doesn't even mention his crimes. you're really reaching with the BLP1E claims. That applies to otherwise anonymous people who get caught up in some famous event. You might as well try to delete Mark David Chapman on BLP1E grounds. Central and Adams (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chapman and his motivations have been continually discussed in reliable sources and it's a reasonable split from the main page when the motivations are so personal and culturally discussed. This is a sex trafficking case. By a technical reading of BLP1E you probably *could* try to AfD that (because BLP1E as written is an extremely confusing policy but I digress).
That article is clearly promo, like a lot of Indian journalism they engage in paid reporting (which I think, given how it's written, might be what's going on here) which does not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you can see that BLP1E would be misapplied in the case of Chapman. You're halfway there. Central and Adams (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really wouldn't. People as is apply BLP1E completely arbitrarily. This is one of its better use cases, IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, why bother to invoke a guideline at all if when challenged you say it's completely arbitrary but it's your opinion that it applies here? You're admitting that it's just your opinion. People have different opinions, which is why we discuss deletions. If you think BLP1E would suffice to delete Chapman, a completely indefensible position, the fact that you think it would suffice to delete ANY article carries zero weight. Central and Adams (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still is a guideline, that people use constantly, so I do think it carries weight. A lot of policies aren't set in stone and need to be analyzed per case and situation.
And when there's nothing analyzing his background, no content on the crime specific to him and not his brother, this is a really bad case for ignoring the precedent. Also he isn't even convicted which is a whole other issue when that's the only thing he's known for, WP:BLPCRIME is a different policy
If there was substantial content relating to the scandal which referred to him and not his brother, maybe that would be a justification for a keep. If there was any significant and reliable coverage on his reality TV history or kickboxing, sure, but they're just footnotes. He's covered only for a crime which he hasn't even been convicted of yet. All in all BLP1E exists for a reason, and there's no other notability that justifies pushing it to the side. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does not even apply here because the following two points do not apply:
  • 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual
  • 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented
Neither of these are true. The event is substantial and documented across a variety of sources, many diving into him specifically. Tristan Tate is certainly not a low-profile individual and almost equally notable as his brother as they rose to fame together. It would be honestly difficult to find many young men who aren't aware of his existence, and sure that is anecdotal but many would agree. Mr Vili talk 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All reliable coverage about Tate is in the context of a single thing he did (get accused, not even be convicted of, sex trafficking). We do not have an article on every person who has ever made the news for being accused of sex trafficking. If there was other analysis of him, perhaps that would not apply. There is no reason to have a duplicate page that says all of the same information vis a vis criminal convictions as the page on his far more notable brother. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Vili talk 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP, unreliable sources cannot stay in the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why the section about his children was removed - when Tristan Tate has stated that he has children, and that there were a number of sources claiming he had children Mr Vili talk 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't touched the article, but from checking the edit history it was removed as sourced to sportsbrief which is unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous sources stating that he has two children - many talking about documents from his court case citing that he should be released as he had newborn children while in jail - seems reliable to me, and also reliable for the fact that Tristan has claimed so himself. Mr Vili talk 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a non controversial self description I think aboutself would be fine (better than a blatantly incorrect source anyway). If he said it on twitter or in an interview that he has two kids, that can be cited for the article - but that doesn't count for notability just page content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at this point I think GNG criteria is met, and it just seems like an effort to remove valid sources & statements - even if that specific one was unreliable there are a number of other ones that also state the same thing. Mr Vili talk 21:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just sportsbrief is unreliable and shouldn't be cited in a BLP. The sourcing standards are higher. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider sportsbrief as unreliable? They seem to be a reliable source about sportspeople [19] Mr Vili talk 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsbrief is quite obviously not reliable. Tate is also not a reliable WP:ABOUTSELF source because there can be reasonable doubt about its authenticity. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's for most things about himself but for something as basic as how many kids he has he would probably be fine, at least in my reading of the policy PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sketchy phrasing and terrible source can be found where I removed them in this diff. Removal of that content seems like an obvious call, but feel free to follow up on the article talk page if you disagree. VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, now that I'm looking at the specific case. "believed to have"... lol PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, removing the statement is not the right way to go about it, there are a number of other sources who also touch on his children but I didn't want to go WP:CITEOVERKILL Mr Vili talk 21:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell the source has never been discussed at the reliable source noticeboard, so I guess in theory the jury is still out, but as a rule of thumb on Wikipedia no article with the title "Tristan Tate's height, brother, daughter, net worth, Instagram, and career" is reliable, much less a source for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article with such title makes sense, because its a sports source that covers information about sportspeople Mr Vili talk 21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it's in every case some badly scraped SEO garbage hastily put together with little human oversight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally are pointing out a !vote that cites a deprecated source and you're telling them to drop the stick??? VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr easy mistake, but you are clearly trying your best to remove any source you consider mildly unreliable. It's just as easy to just say "unreliable" to any source as you have been doing. Mr Vili talk 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three sources are remotely reliable for use in a BLP. There is nothing marginal about them. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how can this subject be any more notable than being talked about by Reuters, BBC, The Independent and dozens of other smaller news outlets, sports news magazines. There's like 4+ hair clinics simply talking about his hair transplant, sources about his kids, sources about his podcasts, sources about his kickboxing, sources about his networth, cars, watches, etc. Hes been interviewed by Piers Morgan, Tucker Carlson, Patrick Bet-david all of which are major media people Mr Vili talk 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of high profile criminals who don't have individual articles. The content he is notable for (crime) is already covered in a different article, why duplicate it? Being interviewed is not in all cases a claim to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The National Review article is not WP:SIGCOV. The-sun.com is not reliable. The Hindustan Times article is not WP:SIGCOV. These three sources do not pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another highly notable source from Sky News Australia, while lacking substance, clearly demonstrates notability as a famous person [23] Mr Vili talk 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sky News Australia is again, not reliable for BLPs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another highly notable source from abc.net.au [24] covering a legal claim against the woman accusing him of sex trafficing. Mr Vili talk 23:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, primarily about his brother and their (alleged) crimes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a pretty equal representation of both of them - The title includes Andrew Tate, however the article regularly mentions Tristan Tate, and refers to both of them as the "Tates" Mr Vili talk 01:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's information that's already covered at Andrew Tate#Criminal investigations. To be clear when we're talking about BIO1E we're not saying the legal stuff shouldn't be mentioned at all on Wikipedia; we're saying it's better covered where we have it. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Agree, but there was an "needs update"/"out of date" notice on that section so I thought I'd update it with more recent information. Anyways, i'm pretty much done editing this article as clearly it's controversial, but by the looks it will survive AfD - I wasn't attached to the outcome but I thought it was important to have community-wide consensus on whether this page should exist. Mr Vili talk 02:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on the article itself, but User:Mr vili and desmay, you two aren't just edit warring, you are also using the most questionable of sources in a BLP. You're lucky that Ponyo just protected the article, because somehow I doubt you two would have stopped with those violations. Hindustan Times? Tuko.co.ke - Kenya news? Please. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until such time as the subject is convicted, or otherwise, of the offences he is accused of. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR both apply, meaning "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." As well as " Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." This article was moved from draft when it was not accepted - the Article for Creation process has been disrespected and subverted as a result. Due process should be followed and the article should go back to draft until such time as this person's legal troubles are resolved, and WP:BLPCRIME is no longer an issue. Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not be a news website. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue he meets WP:GNG for things outside of his criminal case (kickboxing, tv show, internet personality/rise to fame, businesses) - I believe AfC is flawed in this process because there are too many emotions due to the controversial nature so I believe getting wider consensus on this is important. Mr Vili talk 06:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources that back that position up. All the reliable sources mention first and foremost "he has been accused of a crime", then an offhand mention he did something else years ago. Also, you did get wider consensus, it got rejected seven times. It was flagrantly unfit for main space as a BLP, a contentious topic, which you ignored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel like he's certainly notable enough for his own article, and although the page needs a bit of clean up source-wise I feel like it's not a major issue and that it could easily be solved. If I have any free time available I might be able to help add references. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – very popular person in the press. Sources not relating to the arrest so not a BLP1E. Why not keep it? Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup is needed. I see that a lot of delete votes here are based on the fact that his brother Andrew Tate is the subject of most of the sourcing here, and that a lot of the sourcing is not super WP:RELIABLE. I would like to point out this article from Reuters, a highly reliable source that also assumes readers know who Tristan is. That is the main contributor to notability for me. While the other sources used are reliable sources that only mention Tristan in the context of Andrew, or are WP:SIGCOV but not fully reliable, they still marginally contribute to notability. A source table could be helpful here. TLAtlak 03:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience, there is no "marginally contribute to notability". A source either meets all the criteria of gng (reliable, sigcov, independent, secondary), or it does not. In the case of the reuters article, it is close, but may fail sigcov. Adding an enter after every sentence is a common trick news agencies use to make articles look longer. If you take the enters out of the reuters article, it is actually quite short. Shorter than the 3 meaty paragraphs i usually look for when evaluating sigcov. Please see also WP:NOTINHERITED. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the Template:Source assess table (the yellow boxes [partial]). I'll prepare that for this AfD just because there has been so much controversial votes with the topic. I guess the Reuters article could have issues with WP:SIGCOV, but I'll see what else comes up.
    I spoke with the @Mr vili about WP:NOTINHERITED before they moved it to the mainspace, but upon further thinking there is an argument for independent notability here. I'm going to keep my vote for now. TLAtlak 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to cut out the sources that are clearly nonWP:RELIABLE or simply about Andrew Tate, his brother.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andrew-tate-empire-real-story-1234696706/ Yes Yes Rolling Stone is a high quality source in the field of culture. Yes While it is somewhat in the context of his brother, there is a full 200+ word paragraph exclusively analyzing Tristan and his character. Also WP:100W. ✔ Yes
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romanian-prosecutors-add-charge-against-online-personality-tristan-tate-2023-04-25/ Yes Yes ~ It's somewhat WP:ROUTINE and doesn't go super in-depth, as noted by Novem Linguae. ~ Partial
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/andrew-tristan-tate-brother-arrest-trial-b2260087.html Yes Yes Reliable WP:NEWSORG ~ It's essentially fully about Tristan, but as noted by VQuakr, it's mostly about he was arrested, is less famous than his brother, and then basic facts. Good for verification, though. ~ Partial
https://www.westernstandard.news/atlantic/tristan-tate-calls-for-people-to-cancel-canadian-comedian/50645 Yes Yes Presumably No Title assumes knowledge of who Tristan is, and there is some verifying facts presented, but it's just very basic. ✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/from-jake-paul-to-tristan-tate-what-influencers-said-about-vivek-ramaswamy-dropping-out-101705406593110.html Yes Yes No Title, again, assumes readers know who Tristan is, however it's just citing quotes from Tristan. ✘ 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}}.

TLAtlak 08:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/who-is-tristan-tate-andrew-tates-brother-and-the-james-bond-outside-of-the-matrix-101687690324588.html
What about this source, it's a bit promotional but does seem like significant coverage Mr Vili talk 10:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://news.sky.com/story/football-club-defends-decision-to-refund-5-000-donation-from-andrew-and-tristan-tate-13051077
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65144651
Would be also useful to add these to the source assessment table, since they both seem independent and reliable - but the first may not be WP:SIGCOV Mr Vili talk 10:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the football refund on sky news does seem like SIGCOV but I'd be curious to hear other's thoughts Mr Vili talk 11:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/piers-morgan/im-happy-for-him-tristan-tate-discusses-his-brother-andrews-conversion-to-islam/video/8c96a0b7f620fb64b3671f3fe71dbab8
I'll note this source. The article is a bit small, but there is a video of the interview with Piers Morgan in the article, which might be considered WP:SIGCOV? Mr Vili talk 10:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet any of independent, secondary, or SIGCOV (it is 100% reporting what Tate said, not providing analytic commentary on Tate), and additionally fails BLP as it is labeled "opinion", which is not acceptable as RS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr vili I'll assess Hindustan Times later.
The Sky News and BBC article is WP:RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT but very far from significant coverage. Tristan is essentially just quoted. As mentioned already by @PARAKANYAA is only partially reliable, and that is a WP:INTERVIEW and WP:RSOPINION. TLAtlak 16:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record you can't "partially" contribute to notability, as far as I'm aware - it can be verifiable for the contents, but for when we're deciding whether an article is appropriate to have, it either counts or it doesn't. Otherwise I agree with your assessment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing for a BLP who is only notable for a crime -- and an incredibly serious and contentious crime at that -- must be exceptional. BLP1E is supposed to guide whether an article on a notable topic should focus on the person or on the event when either already meets GNG; it is not per se criteria for establishing GNG for the topic itself. In this case, we do not have the significant IRS coverage of Tristan to meet GNG, but even if we did, BLP1E would advise against a biography because the sources are all in the same context, and SUSTAINED would also be failed for the same reason.
    The Reuters piece is primary news reporting, not secondary analysis of the subject, and anyway is far from SIGCOV of Tristan Red XN. The Independent piece is one of those tabloidy bio-lists where info is scraped from social media with no secondary contextualization Red XN. The Rolling Stone article on his brother contains very little secondary independent content on Tristan; virtually everything about him is in the form of quotes (with or without quotation marks) Red XN. If these are the three best sources on Tristan then they fall very short of GNG and objectively fail SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Al Jazeera article, while headlines his brother, does cover Tristan Significantly Mr Vili talk 02:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr vili could you provide a link? As well, I don't think this really meets WP:BLP1E, which has three conditions noted. TLAtlak 02:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It talks about his son born in jail, quotes and the article often refers to both of them as the "Tate brothers" https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/1/online-influencer-andrew-tate-moved-to-house-arrest-in-romania Mr Vili talk 06:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh that's probably between partial and not WP:SIGCOV, it basically just has a quote from Tristan. It can be used for verification for sure though (fact that Tristan has a baby son who was born after his arrest. TLAtlak 06:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is purely a passing mention, not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to disagree, its SIGCOV of both of the brothers, just because Tristan Tate is mentioned by name a few times, he is mentioned as the tate brothers many more times Mr Vili talk 23:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SIGCOV requires coverage to be direct and in detail. A news piece on the Tate brothers' detention is not detailed coverage of Tristan directly; the only place where any secondary info directly on him appears is in the single sentence about his having a son, which is not significant. But even if this was SIGCOV, it squarely fails SUSTAINED and, as a news item, is not secondary. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    News items are usually considered secondary on wikipedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when they simply report the events and don't offer secondary commentary. All but one of the details on Tate in the above source are relaying news updates. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E is primarily for deciding whether a topic that is already considered notable should be a biography or an event page. Failing to meet any of the BLP1E criteria does not mean a BLP actually meets the SUSTAINED requirement for notability, it just means that if they are found to be notable a biography would be acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Andrew and Tristan are equally notable at this point. —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: The reason for this article being brought to AfD is bizarre, and the circumstantial history leading us here (including whatever went on at AfC) is more a hindrance than a help to assessing this article's suitability for Wikipedia. The article seems to have undergone substantial editing since its nomination, particularly regarding the quality of its sources. I happen to think this article probably should be redirected or merged per WP:BIO1E, but a fresh AfD, even if immediately after this one, brought forward by someone who can actually make a strong case for the article to be deleted, not by a keep-sniper, will be more helpful for understanding consensus than this AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarize:
    • This article was created in mainspace, before it was moved to draft space for quality/notability issues, where there was a history of sockpuppetry trying to get it into mainspace
    • The draft was submitted and declined six times
    • Mr vili, an unrelated editor, decided that this was decent quality for mainspace, and submitted it for the seventh time
    • I disagreed, given that it had numerous unreliable sources cited on a BLP, cited very few reliable sources, and ran afoul of several guidelines on notability including BLPCRIME, BLP1E, WP:SUSTAINED, and didn't seem to evidence the notability outside of being the other Tate's brother, and declined it
    • I was taken to dispute resolution for declining the draft
    • Robert, though agreeing it was not ready for mainspace, accepted the draft under the conditions that it be immediately taken to AfD
    • <-- WE ARE HERE
    PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I add that the only sockpuppet I could find that edited the draft was Chocobiscuits. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't believe Tristan Tate is notable for a single event, he was widely known prior to his arrests as an internet celebrity alongside his brother, he additionally also starred on a reality TV show and was a european kickboxer.
    But yes, I agree that the AfD got messy and was created in a bizarre way, I have no issue with someone re-nominating this for deletion, but I believe that due to the controversial nature, it must involve greater community consensus. Mr Vili talk 05:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, you believe that, but not a single source presented backs up notability on the basis of internet celebrity or kickboxing. Every reliable source that discusses him says, first and foremost, and he has been accused of a crime. It doesn't matter if he did the things if the reliable sources don't focus on them - he doesn't even pass notability based on crime PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability aside, what is unique to Tristan in the present article can be summarised in a paragraph and merged with Andrew Tate. There isn't altogether that much to justify a standalone article. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems very odd to put Tristan Tate in an article about his brother when they are almost equally well known. If anything at worst there would be a page like Wright brothers Mr Vili talk 09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they are almost equally well known by a long way. Just skim reading the titles of the sources in the article shows that. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En Idhaya Rani

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

Cannot find third-party sources. The film released at an unfortunate time (early February 1993) when there are no archives of it here. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker#Accidents. If you prefer a different Redirect target, please discuss it on the talk page. Feel free to Merge any content that is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States Air Force Flight W05

United States Air Force Flight W05 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability (a blog and a non-independent source) for this incident, which ended well and seems to have had no major consequences otherwise. A redirect to List of Mayday episodes#Season 21 (2021) may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker#Accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ageless

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

Tagged as WP:OR and WP:FORUM since 2008 and unreferenced since 2017. Personally, I just think the whole thing is confusing. At least sister articles Ageing, Immortality and Eternal youth seem to have direction on what they want to say. Alternatively redirect as antonym to Ageing. --Lenticel (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Arif Kamal Noon

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

Non-notable advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

He is former Elected Chairman Executive of Punjab Bar Council and former Prosecutor General Punjab, If he non-notable then who is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archetyp Market

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

Fails WP:NCORP - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm not familiar with tarnkappe.info, but there are no hits for it on the WP:RSN search, and it appears to be the only substantive source anyways. ~ A412 talk! 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your point, but the trouble I am having is that most of the things that need to be cited are on Tor, and I am currently facing difficulties indexing everything that is on Tor and tor index's that would be accepted according to Wikipedia's guidelines. It's a tricky situation when trying to document a part of the internet that doesn't want to be found or is on Tor. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations you could give on getting this up to snuff Darkwebhistory (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Bubble Bingo

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

Promotional, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~ A412 talk! 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Delete and redirect" is not an ATD as it results in the deletion of the article. Would a straight Redirect work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlayAlong

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

Old product that never went anywhere, should be redirected to the main company article. There's some coverage (e.g. this Adweek piece), but everything substantive I've been able to find looks like a press release, with the exception of this one article from the Hollywood Reporter, which isn't enough on its own for WP:NCORP. Rusalkii (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Patriotic Movement

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

Duplicate page of Somali National Movement just incomprehensible. Same names of orgs in Somali. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ahmed Ali, Fatuma (2022). "The Somali National Movement Engineering self-determination of Somaliland". In Bach, Jean-Nicolas (ed.). Routledge handbook of the Horn of Africa. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 89–97. ISBN 9780429426957. However, it is believed that these suppressive efforts by Barre's regime did not stop the SNM from waging its armed resistance in northern Somalia, but it is also made it see the opportunity to support other clan-based rebel groups to take up arms against the regime. These included the United Somali Congress (USC) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) supported respectively by the Hawiye and the Ogaden clans. (p.93)
  2. ^ Hunter, Brian (1993). "Somalia". In Hunter, Brian (ed.). The Statesman’s Year-Book. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1181–1183. doi:10.1057/9780230271227_160. ISBN 9780230271227. After 12 years of civil war involving 5 factions, prominent amongst them the United Somali Congress (USC), the Somali National Movement (SNM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), rebel forces had fought their way into Mogadishu by the end of 1990. (p.1181)
  3. ^ Mukhtar, Mohamed Haji (1996). "The plight of the Agro‐pastoral society of Somalia". Review of African Political Economy. 23 (70): 543–553. doi:10.1080/03056249608704222. The Somali Patriotic Movement, representing the Ogaden clan, operated in the Middle and Lower Juba valley (p.550)
  4. ^ Duursma, Allard (3 April 2022). "Non-state conflicts, peacekeeping, and the conclusion of local agreements". Peacebuilding. 10 (2): 138–155. doi:10.1080/21647259.2022.2032946. For example, following heavy fighting between the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement/Somali National Alliance (SPM/SNA) in the Kismayo area, UNOSOM together with local clan elders mediated negotiations between the parties which led to the signing of the Jubbaland Peace Agreement on 6 August 1993. (p.153)
  5. ^ Osman, Abdulahi A. (2019). "The role of inequality in the collapse of the Somali State". Journal of Somali Studies. 6 (2): 51–74. ProQuest 2328867061. The Somali Patriotic Movement was an armed faction of the Ogaden, a sub-clan of Daarood clan. It was headed by Col. Mohamed Omar Jees, who was a great supporter and an ally of the late General Mohamed Aideed. (p.66)
There's clearly versions of the article in its history which do not include material copied from the Somali National Movement article. Given the editor responsible for the present problems is now blocked, simple reversion to a previous version of the article is possible, no TNT necessary here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be passing mentions and not SIGCOV as required for orgs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn, which version do you propose restoring the article to? -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the organization is completely different from the SNM and deleting the page for a historically significant armed movement (look it up, the SPM as one of the major rebel groups that overthrew Siad Barre) because some guy made dumb edits to the page isn't a good idea. It needs cleanup and additional sources added, not deletion. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above arguments. Bulbajer (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A dramatic improvement in sourcing during the AfD shifted consensus into Keep territory. A separate discussion about a possible merger into another page can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism

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

Article has one citation, is extremely undue as it suggests disputed social groups known as colectivos are terrorist in nature and relies solely on the opinion of the Venezuelan opposition. No other groups or states make the suggestions made in this article. WMrapids (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that being said, the content clearly meets WP:GNG and there's information that goes back decades and is clearly notable. I would ask the editor @WMrapids: to consider withdrawing the nomination after these changes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained on the talk page, your addition was quite hasty and sloppily copied from a Spanish Wikipedia article. The sources you provided failed verification and did not support what you were trying to introduce. As I said in my conclusion, if we have some independent, reliable sources providing the same information, then that would be more appropriate and a withdrawal of my nomination would be considered. WMrapids (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you provided more details about this. At any rate, and while I work in improvements, it's clear that the article meets WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: When you refer to the absence of secondary sources, do you mean to the original version or in general? I have expanded the article, you can let know your thoughts here, including about neutrality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus. Are there changes to the article and page title, removing "terrorism" that could be done through editing? Or do those editors arguing Delete see this as a TNT situation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , should be added in to a different larger article 109.255.35.74 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Goldsztajn: Do you mean the current version or the article or overall? I'll leave here the original expansion that I proposed here to improve the issues:[25]
There are several academic works that cover this issue:
  • P. Sullivan, Mark (2011). Latin America: Terrorism Issues. DIANE Publishing.: Since May 2006, the Secretary of State has made an annual determination that Venezuela was not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts" (...) As a result, the United States imposed an arms embargo on Venezuela, which ended all U.S. commercial arms sales and re-transfers to Venezuela
  • C., Bonfili (2010). The United States and Venezuela: The social construction of interdependent rivalry. pp. 669–690. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help): 2006. In a hearing before the US Congressional Sincommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, a State Department official justified the embargo on grounds of official concern about Chávez overall actions against terrorism, his public statements in international forums addressing terrorism, his ties with states sponsoring terrorism, and his conduct towards terrorist organizations
  • D., Byman (2022). "Understanding, and misunderstanding, state sponsorship of terrorism". No. 45. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. pp. 1031–1049.: a country like Venezuela could easily be added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism
  • Rendon, Moises; Price, Max (2019). Are Sanctions Working in Venezuela?. Center for Strategic and International Studies.: [t]he Department of Treasury sanctioned dozens of government and military officials for charges including support for terrorism, drug and human trafficking, human rights violations, corruption, money laundering, other financial crimes, and illiberal behavior.
Investigative outlet Insight Crime has also written the following in the past:
  • Venezuela is a vital base of operations for dissidents from the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC).[26]
  • For decades, Venezuela had been a safe haven for leaders of the FARC, whose insurgent war to overthrow the Colombian government began in the 1960s. Senior commanders such as Duarte could live free from fear under the protection of the Venezuelan state led by President Hugo Chávez and later his successor Nicolás Maduro. But Duarte was the fourth senior ex-FARC commander assassinated in Venezuela in the space of a year.[27]
  • Colombian guerrilla group the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional – ELN) has used Venezuelan territory for decades, but its presence in the country has become increasingly important since 2000 as its Colombian operations have been squeezed by paramilitary groups and security forces. This coincided with the arrival of former Venezuela President Hugo Chávez in 1999. Chávez’s rise to power and his idea of ​​a socialist model for Venezuela was the ELN’s entry point. The political platform of the late president shared similar ideas with the ELN. This would eventually benefit the ELN and other guerrilla groups in Colombia.[28]
  • Two leaders of Spain’s Basque separatist group hiding out in Venezuela allegedly receive salaries from state entities, marking the latest accusations that the Venezuelan government aids and abets terrorist organizations.[29]
The issue has been covered by scholars and journalists, and not just politicians. The evidence mostly points out to the FARC and ELN guerrilla groups, designated as terrorist organizations by many organizations and countries, so most accusations actually have come from Colombia and not from the United States. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After the article's expansion, the reason for the nomination is moot. The page has 24 references now, and now it doesn't cover just the position of the National Assembly, but also that of intelligence agencies, journalists and experts. The article should be kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with the article at present is that it is essentially an unnecessary WP:FORK of a geopolitical dispute between the US and the current Venezuelan government, which as I said above, should be covered in the Venezuela-US relations article. If this is to exist as a separate artilce and not suffer from COATRACK and UNDUE issues, it needs to cover *all* aspects of the topic, that is the various sponsoring states and historically. Some examples of missing topics:
  1. When Dominican Republic President Trujillo organised an assassination attempt on President Betancourt in 1960.[1]
  2. Betancourt's support for the Kennedy administration's assassination plots against Castro in the early 1960s[2]
  3. US support for counter-insurgency in the 1960s[3]
  4. Allegations from Philip Agee that in 1963 the CIA planted arms in Venezuela to appear to be from Cuba (CIA now claims was Cuban)[4]
  5. Claims of US state terrorism around the 2002 attempted coup.[5]
  6. Claims of US role in 2020 coup attempt[6]
  7. Further 2020 plots of terrorism[7]

References

  1. ^ Ginter, Kevin (June 2013). "Truth and Mirage: The Cuba-Venezuela Security and Intelligence Alliance". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. 26 (2): 220. doi:10.1080/08850607.2013.758003.
  2. ^ Rabe, Stephen (January 1996). "The Caribbean Triangle: Betancourt, Castro, and Trujillo and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1958-1963". Diplomatic History. 20 (1): 64. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.1996.tb00252.x.
  3. ^ Huggins, Martha K. (1987). "U.S.-Supported State Terror: A History of Police Training in Latin America". Crime and Social Justice (27/28): 149–171. ISSN 0094-7571. ...to be encouraged to use more "roving patrols" to hunt suspects. These changes on the part of the U.S. public safety team in Venezuela turned "the tide of battle...[so that] the cops were outkilling the communists."
  4. ^ Harmer, Tanya (August 2019). "The "Cuban Question" and the Cold War in Latin America, 1959–1964". Journal of Cold War Studies. 21 (3): 143. doi:10.1162/jcws_a_00896.
  5. ^ "Killing blamed on 'U.S.-trained terrorists'". NBC News. 19 November 2004.
  6. ^ "Ex-Green Beret led failed attempt to oust Venezuela's Maduro". AP News. 1 May 2020.
  7. ^ "Venezuela announces terrorism charges against alleged US 'spy'". The Guardian. 14 September 2020.

Personally, I see this article as a Pandora's Box for drama - the only NPOV way for it to be maintained is that all incidents deemed terrorism supported by a state are essentially relevant...and we go down the rabbit hole of what constitutes terrorism, who deems it terrorism and which source is really independent ... ad nauseum. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(opening Pandora's Box) - Insight Crime is a Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State funded organisation, having recieved almost US$1 million from the US government since 2019. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelan Minister Calls US Sanctions 'Economic Terrorism' Voice of America, September 12, 2019. Economic state terrorism is state terrorism. I'm not trying to be facecious, just that if kept, this is the direction this article will also necessarily have to go. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict, very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018". Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela By Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2019. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the gist of your point, the scope of the article currently seems very clear and we're talking about different things: this page is about the confirmed or reported support from the Venezuelan state to terrorist organizations (not to be confused with state terrorism, which would be acts conducted by the state itself). This is consistent with other articles with the same convention: Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Qatar and even the United States themselves. If anything, in the case of the Assassination attempt of Rómulo Betancourt Venezuela was a victim of arguably state sponsored terrorism, and not a sponsor itself.
Most of what you're describing falls under the scope of the United States and state terrorism and United States and state-sponsored terrorism articles, which already covers topics such as the 1976 Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 bombing, for instance. Yes, there can be content covered at the United States–Venezuela relations article, but over half of the current content is related to Colombia and not the US, and that would be without going into details about relations with Spain (ETA) or the Middle East (Hezbollah). Even without taking into account investigations by Insight Crime, there is plenty of reporting by newspapers of record such as El País, El Mundo and CNN, as well as Venezuelan journalists and activists. This topic is notable and extensive enough on its own to warrant its own article.
Last but not least, is these concerns are issues that need to be fixed, thegy definitely fall under WP:BEFORE. Problems about content can be fixed through expansion or editing, not with deletion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the scope of the article currently seems very clear" ... according to you, but that's just an assertion. If the article is only about a geopolitical dispute between the US and Venezuela then this can be covered in the article on relations between the countries. If the article is about state-sponsored terrorism and Venezuela then we need it all. One can only argue keep on the basis that the article covers all matters related to state sponsored terrorism and Venezuela. One can argue delete on the basis that an article on the geopolitical dispute between the countries is redundant, a fork and already able to be covered in the US-Venezuela relations article. It's one or the other. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is ultimately decided by the community, to prevent original research. And once again: most content is unrelated to the geopolitical conflict between the US and Venezuela. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the claims you suggest would need to be included and would open the "Pandora's box" would not need to be included, either because they are not cases of state sponsorship of terrorism (1.-4.) or require taking Venezuelan government claims at face value (the rest), something even the cited articles do not do. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: After reviewing this great outline by @Goldsztajn: (following their opening of Pandora's Box), it seems clear that NoonIcarus is attempting to create a POV fork article, especially since they arbitrarily determined that these are no longer allegations in the National Liberation Army (Colombia)[30] and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia[31] articles. The majority of these sources are from adversarial governments (Colombia and the US) or from "independent" sources funded by one of the former. Despite the changes, I continue to believe that this article needs to be deleted and its content should be placed in more appropriate articles.--WMrapids (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very dissapointed at this comment because you specifically said that "[i]f we can have independent, reliable sources documenting Venezuela's support for FARC and the ELN, I would remove my nomination"[32]. The backpedalling is very clear and ignores the work of journalists such as those from Venezuela, CNN or El País. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Several comments. Please do not misuse WP:BEFORE, this is a process that occurs by the nominator before the AFD is started, not during the AFD. Read the policy. Second, an assessment of the sources brought up here would be useful for the closer, whomever that is. Finally, do not veer into a discussion of the subject matter here, that can happen if there is a decision to Keep this article on the article talk page and just serves to double and triple the size of this AFD which can discourage new participation (which is what we need right now). We could really use three or four of our AFD regulars assessing this article, in light of policy and the sources supplied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The article was appropriately expanded during the discussion with several sources. I don't see anything really consistent arguing for deletion, and sources contradictory to the main body of the scope can also be added in a dedicated session. Svartner (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna lean decisively towards keep here, mainly because this article is about a significant policy the Venezuelan government has perused for which there is pretty compelling evidence for. The decisive factor here is that the original editor's argument with regards the veracity of the sources of the article is marginal. The FARC and ELN are not necessarily terrorist organizations, but both have certainly engaged in narco-terrorism, not to mention, there's this guy: Tareck El Aissami. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kibble Park

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

Notability tag which I added in 2018 was removed. I believe this fails WP:NGEO. Almost all the gnews hits are very local Central Coast Community news. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Harasimowicze. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harasimowicze-Kolonia

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czarnorzeczka‎ in that it is a subunit of Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka that is independent, but has nearly no sourceable information (population, etc.) to speak of. The only difference is that it is a sołectwo and has a sołtys and a council. However, I think this information is better suited for a table on the gmina's page (with the other sołectwa) per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Redirect target articles suggested and we need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Moses

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

Unnotable mayor of a small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Several LA Times articles, though they really just seem to be WP:ROTM coverage about standard town going-ons. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article was part of a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas) and so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Gomez (politician)

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

Completely unnotable mayor of a small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, hardly any secondary sources found. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of memorials to Elvis Presley. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Elvis Presley (Seattle)

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

Does not appear to have SIGCOV; Only source is to a community blog. I sadly cannot find any other coverage of this online. Generalissima (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎ as WP:ATD. Consensus is clear that the sources do not currently support notability; however, participants expect more coverage to emerge soon. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside (2024 film)

Morningside (2024 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an as yet unreleased film, not demonstrated as the subject of nearly enough production coverage to be exempted from the primary notability criteria for films. As always, the main notability criteria for films hinge on the film having been released to the public, and require things like film reviews by professional film critics, noteworthy film awards, and other markers of permanent significance like that — some leeway is given to films still in the pipeline if they have a lot of production coverage, but we don't just immediately accept an article about every film that enters the production pipeline off just one hit of coverage. Films have been known to enter the production pipeline and then never come out the other end as a finished film for various reasons, so a film still in the production process requires a lot more than just one hit of verification that it exists as an unfinished project.
According to the only reliable source cited here, however, the film only just started shooting in December 2023, so we're at best months away from any potential release date — and the only other footnote that was being used here (which I've had to strip) was an alumni interview with a supporting cast member on the self-published website of his own alma mater, which is not a reliable, independent or notability-building source at all.
So no prejudice against recreation later in the year if and when it actually comes out and starts getting more coverage than this, but one media hit is not enough all by itself to make a film that's still in the production process permanently notable this far in advance of release. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft: is fine with me, possibly more coverage coming in the near future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakDelete or Draftify. Looks likely to be notable upon release and has sources confirming that principle photography has begun so the question is whether sources covering the production itself are sufficient to support an article. In my opinion, there isn't quite enough now but there might be more soon. This is the kind of article that WP:NFILM encourages people not to create because they are likely to get deleted and then recreated after release which is more work for everyone. But encouraging the creation of articles a fair percentage of which will end up as non-notable perma-stubs isarguably even worse. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Ordinarily, I would relist this discussion to get a more firm consensus. But except for hot button topics, we have fewer and fewer editors participating in AFDs, thoughtfully, and many relisted discussions so I'll just close this with what seems to be a solution. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Petrovna Ostrovskaya

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

Questionable notoriety. Article reads a bit like a resume and is orphaned anyway, which leads back to the questionable notoriety point. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Claes Oldenburg. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claes Oldenburg (The South Bank Show)

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

As per the removed prod "UPE blocked spammer. Essentially an episode listing with no coverage. Refs are IMDB style and single NY Times doesn't mention it. Fails WP:SIGCOV." Most of the so called production section is purely about Oldenburg and has no direct connection to this documentary. Even if there is some notability/ATD we should DENY the creator and start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy Wellness Foundation

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

spam from blocked paid editor. non notable business. bombarded with press releases and public relations announcements. some sources used dishonesty, not verifying the pages content. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Spam from blocked sock. Quasi-independent looking sources originate via WP:RSPANI, which could be legit, but in combination with bad-faith user... probably unmarked paid content.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReLiva Physiotherapy and Rehab

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

spam from blocked paid editor refbombed to primary sources, routine announcements, pr and copyright violations on udrop duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Malnati

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

Not seeing genuine notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The sources which exist are either non-independent, unreliable, or passing mentions. Much PR, but no in-depth coverage. Notability is not inherited from either the magicians' podcast or the company. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puttshack

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

Not notable. No coverage past PR agencies and routine announcement. Award is not major duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay:, nothing in WP:NCORP allows for notability simply for winning an award. Are there any references meeting WP:ORGCRIT that you found. Let me know as I may have missed some in my search. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, I think you meant to ping Jax 0677. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Thanks for the courtesy ping. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was no consensus as to all. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of any of these subjects. BD2412 T 02:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alloa, Ontario

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

Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Cotta, Ontario, three more new articles about neighbourhoods in Caledon -- again using primary sources rather than reliable ones, and again all created at improper "Neighbourhood, Canada" titles to bypass the fact that the proper comma-Ontario titles already existed as redirects to Caledon in all three cases.
The issue remains that WP:GEOLAND does not confer automatic notability freebies on submunicipal neighbourhoods just because they exist -- they have to be shown to pass WP:GNG to get their own articles, and only get redirects to the municipality otherwise. But none of these three neighbourhoods are being shown to pass GNG at all, so they all need to be deleted, and have their original redirects to Caledon (which I again had to delete in the process of moving these pages to their proper titles) restored. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read alot about Wildfield, it seems to be settlement centered around a catholic church. Currently, it is a neighborhood in Brampton. If it were me, I'd write an article about St Patricks Church and just put all the material about wildfield in that article. There is very little in the way good sources for wildfield.James.folsom (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book from the 1980s about the church on the church's website - it would be a good source. https://stpatricksbr.archtoronto.org/en/our-community/parish-story/our-parish-history/st.-patricks-wildfield---150th-anniversary/ Also search for it's original name - Gribbin. Nfitz (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Belfountain is more well known of the 3. There's a book https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-belfountain-book/140550148/. If it's reliable and independent, then it's a good secondary source. Any thoughts Uncle G?James.folsom (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not familiar with local government boundaries in Ontario, but I think that's causing a bit of the problem here: it looks like Caledon is one of the municipalities within Peel and encompasses quite a large area of land, and that Caledon was once a township? It's incredibly confusing, but it's pretty clear to me Belfountain was a settlement/hamlet within the township - Terra Cotta, Alloa, and Wildfield also appear on a 1937 map before any of the suburban development occurred. I strongly disagree these are neighbourhoods and they look like they were recognised populated places in their own time, and in Belfountain and Terra Cotta's case, are still currently recognised as such, even though they are completely within the Caledon municipality, and therefore are okay per GEOLAND. I will note Alloa has the least amount of coverage I've been able to find, and I didn't BEFORE Wildfield, but this also should not have been bundled. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absent WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, the distinction between a "recognized populated place" that passes WP:GEOLAND for its own article and a neighbourhood or community that just gets a redirect cuts on what the place's status is today, not on unsourced or primary-sourced claims about what its status might have been 50 or 100 years ago. That is, even if they were recognized populated places in their own time, they still only get to have their own standalone articles as separate topics from Caledon if their sourcing is on point, and only get redirects to Caledon if their sourcing is less than on point. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only was Caledon once a township, the towns in question here, weren't even in Caledon township, but in the neighbouring townships of Albion, Chinguacousy, and Toronto Gore. They are a long, long way from the town of Caledon. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, that WP:GEOLAND interpretation is clearly incorrect - Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Belfountain clearly isn't even abandoned, and it's clearly a stand-alone place, with a public school, cemetery, and a welcome sign on the roadway which says "settled circa 1825." Wildfield specifically had a church built - Through most of the 1890s Holmes worked in partnership with Albert Asa Post, a former student of Henry Langley. Post and Holmes specialized in the sort of High Victorian ecclesiastical and collegiate design that they inherited from Street, Connolly and Langley. The simple parish church, designed about 1894, for the village of Wildfield in the Toronto Gore, is typical of their work (Fig. 1). ([33]) The church was apparently built in 1830 and then again in 1894 according to the book Catholics at the Gathering by Mark McGowan, 1992, p. 21 (endnotes), and is also in Place Names of Ontario (Alan Rayburn, 1997) but I cannot access the text apart from the fact it was first known as Grantville or Grantsville. I can't find much on Alloa apart from that it may have just been a post office according to an 1869 gazetteer. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's wrong to suggest that these old towns are "neighbourhoods" in Caledon. Caledon was a mostly rural township, and these are villages that date back to the 1800s - even Wildfield, which was renamed from Gribbin around 1900 or so. Belfountain is very well known. This user notes above other similar nominations - all of which are highly contested. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing of substance to Alloa; its practically a nonexistent place that hardly warrants a standalone article. Even after urbanization gets more complete on the Brampton side, it would only get mentioned in an article of the future neighborhood it's deemed part of (or the article written and submitted again if said neighborhood gets called Alloa). *:Transportfan70 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's actually the case, then the AFD should be closed, and that one should be discussed separately. I only looked at Belfountain and Wildfield (and Terra Cotta and West Mayfield) before it became clear that this AFD was very poor. Though Alloa has a fair-sized school, and at least one church - I wouldn't be surprised if something does pop if one did an in-depth search - which clearly hasn't been done for the other 4 communities that are part of, or are referenced in, this nomination. And still, the nomination basis is that these are neighbourhoods - when in reality they all 150-year to 200-year old villages. It's very clear a BEFORE wasn't done that considered them as anything other than recent suburbs Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see three editors advocating Deletion of at least one article so this is not a unanimous situation even now, Nfitz. I was going to relist this discussion again but after your remarks, I'll sit out of this and let another admin or editor take over the future of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets quit being so nasty with other editors, Notability is based on consensus and is an art not a science. If you read WP:GNG in it's strictest interpretation, these would get deleted. This process exists so that editors can seek input on articles of questionable notability (which these are BTW). If the editor had submitted New York, NY to AFD, you could give 'em a little crap for it. We should just let the processes work and stop acting like AFD is some kind of witch hunt.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In itself yes, but if you submit New York as an AFD, a few days after submitting Chicago and Boston, both of which were heading to obvious keeps, there is a problem. That said, a witch hunt wasn't my intent. The failure of those AFDs, which in my mind are for locations slightly and significantly less notable than Belfountain, are relevant to this discussion. Wildfield seemed to have enough references to it when I checked, and at least Alloa appears on old maps, unlike West Mayfield - though I've not researched Alloa; the AFD fails with Belfountain. Grouping well-known villages with lesser-known villages doesn't work, and there's no prejudice against listing Alloa separately. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't trying to single you out Nfitz, I should have stated that at the outset. That's why I didn't indent, I thought that was obvious. I just see all these editors lashing out because they see an affront that may just be another editor trying to do something useful. Just a general call for some inclusion and understanding. is all. James.folsom (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - and wise words. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Contrary to claims deep befores have been done on Alloa, and it should be deleted. The other two probably aren't going kill anybody to keep. So let's just delete Alloa, and leave the other two. There are certainly other things more deserving of our time.James.folsom (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would any place on the provincial road map ever be a delete, and not a redirection to whatever it's in; in this case, I'd go for Chinguacousy, but the article is woefully incomplete, and doesn't list "several villages". But why would it not be redirected to Caledon, Ontario#Communities at per WP:ATD. I'd say any town on the official map is a likely search target. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because these discussion have seen time and again that maps don't prove anything, and there are many reasons why things are own maps. Also if your going to write anything about a dot on a map, you ought to write the correct information. You need sources to do that. Show me some proof there was ever a town called Alloa, as opposed to just a rural area known as a Alloa. Rural areas are often marked on maps as well. I failed miserably in finding any tangible evidence, but evidence is all that is needed to change that vote. Show me any reliable source that the place was a town. Show me the sources, Ill write the damn article. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Own maps User:James.folsom? I was referring to THE official road map of the Government of Ontario - you know, the famous one that we all grew up with - at least anyone who is under the age of about 110. The one that doesn't show most roads and villages, because it's 1:700,000 and covers about 800 km on one sheet. That being said, I misremembered, and while Befountain (of course), and even Wildfield are on the road map - Alloa isn't. Still it is in the famous 1880ish Peel County map - and I think any settlement on there is a decent redirect target. 04:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that your aware own=on. And yes Belfountain and Wildfield are there because they exist. And my point remains, rural communities appear on 1800's maps too, you know. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, there simply are not any sources that support your point of view. It was and is just a rural farming community, of that I have no doubt, because I did a ton of reading trying to prove otherwise. James.folsom (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow User:James.folsom. Why go to and break the AGF rule ... the word "on" never crossed my mind. Please apologize - I thought you were trying to imply that there are a lot of maps by a lot of different people around. The 1880 map shows buildings at the intersection (well maps, as Mayfield Road is the dividing line between the two mapsheets). Things do disappear - look at Speyside, Ontario, just to the west - you wouldn't know it was a town once, from the abandoned gas station, and a couple of more modern houses along 15 Sideroad - no evidence of the former roads that I can see while walking around Speyside; but I digress. Why haven't you haven't explained why a redirection is not an option? Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for calling me on the AGF thing. I am really sorry about that. I've realized I've gotten to involved with this and that the nominator also called for a redirect. I will change my vote. James.folsom (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus here either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just because a place is on a map, doesn't mean they don't get deleted. Even the article for Stayner (a full-blown village of 4,000 plus people) has been deleted/redirected.
Transportfan70 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stayner hasn't been deleted. It's never been proposed for deletion, or nominated at articles for deletion. The person who redirected it indicated that if developed it would be okay as an article. Maybe you should work on it, and bring it back. You could insist that it be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. But I think I would work on it a little and see if it stays, you could discuss this with the other editor. James.folsom (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI'd like to change my vote to "Keep". I think I'll be in Brampton this Sunday so I'll take a photo of the development in the area for more article notability.
Transportfan70 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe these photos can contribute to notability James.folsom (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they do contribute to making a place more standalone article-worthy by showing if its substantial, which the area is now becoming. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
concur with that. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. IIt sounds like there are inadequate reliable sources establishing notability. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, let me know or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abshir Muse Said

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

This is complex. Said looks notable but when this was at AfC and at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Abshir_Muse_Said we realized some of the sources didn't even mention him and the text is conflated with that of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed. Likely UPE editing as well and repeated recreation, so bringing it here for consensus. Star Mississippi 03:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further example of lifted text here (thanks @Wikishovel). Star Mississippi 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Outline of education#Educational organizations. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy of schools

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

Unreferenced WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merge or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thajuddin

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

The article is about Chera Perumals of Makotai and specially it covers Legend of Cheraman Perumals and it already covered about Thajuddin. But the current article is not give reliable source and some sources NOT directly confirm certain events. Splitting of the Moon is a believe, not historical and scientific event. Did Thajuddin lived during the time of Muhammad or after Mohamed? Legend of Cheraman Perumals already cover the topic and no need to have another non proven person. AntanO 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Thajuddin's page in Wikipedia is justified as it encapsulates a significant historical and cultural figure. While acknowledging the challenges regarding source reliability, Thajuddin represents a figure of substantial folklore and tradition, contributing to the rich tapestry of cultural narratives. Despite the debate surrounding the historical accuracy of certain events attributed to him, his presence in historical discussions provides insight into the socio-political milieu of his time. Thajuddin's purported existence, whether contemporaneous with or postdating Muhammad, offers a lens through which to explore the interplay of legend and history in the broader narrative of the Cheraman Perumals and their era. Therefore, his inclusion fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural heritage and historical discourse surrounding the Cheraman Perumals of Makotai. DonParlo (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kings are notable. But, Why this duplicate page (Chera Perumals of Makotai and Legend of Cheraman Perumals)? Already this article was declined. User already mentioned it as folklore and tradition, and it already covered in Legend of Cheraman Perumals. There is no reliable source, and the reliable sources point to Cheraman Perumal, not so called Thajuddin who met Muhammad (from Kerala to Mecca). --AntanO 11:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern about potential duplication and the classification of the topic as folklore and tradition, but the existence of a separate page dedicated to Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives. While it may be acknowledged as folklore, documenting such narratives contributes to the broader understanding of regional legends and their cultural significance. Moreover, although sources may vary in reliability, the presence of differing accounts underscores the diversity of perspectives and interpretations within historical discourse. As such, maintaining a distinct page for Thajuddin allows for a nuanced examination of this figure and his alleged encounter, enriching the discourse surrounding Kerala's historical and cultural landscape. The article in Legend of Cheraman Perumals does not cover this Legend in detail. DonParlo (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
//Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives// Can you give reliable source for such claim? --AntanO 15:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ O. Loth, Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office (London: Secretary of State of India, 1877), no. 1044.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 95-98.
^ Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.
^ H. H. Wilson, Mackenzie Collection. A descriptive catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts and other articles illustrative of the literature, history, statistics and antiquities of the south of India (Calcutta, 1828), II, appendix, p. XCV.
^ Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 98. DonParlo (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.scribd.com/document/519315791/Qissat-Shakarwati-Farmad-a-Tradition-Con DonParlo (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this objectively this wiki page does not do that much significant to anything. So what's the point of deleting it. I think people should keep this page. Is it gives a deeper insight into the legend. ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To begin with the subject of the page Thajuddin, there is no reference that it was formerly called Tamil King Cheraman Perumal. More so, there are contentious websites and some references that are just scraps as if someone did a Google search to find a word and used it as a testimony for a much larger paragraph. I find it impossible to verify the paragraphs from the references given. RangersRus (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Legend of Cheraman Perumals. The legend of the introduction of Islam to India is certainly notable, but the present article presents this legend as fact. The Legend of Cheraman Perumals article can be expanded with the specific events in the legend (the vision of the split moon and the pilgrimage to Mecca) if Indian historiographic sources are sufficient to verify that this is, in fact, part of the known legend. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge would be good, but need to cleanup per RS. AntanO 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sock !votes --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep: It is a important to keep this page as it expands on the over all legend and story of Thajuddin putting it in other pages such as the Legend of Cheraman Perumals doesn't do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by சரோகம (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Keeping the wiki page on Thajuddin's existence is justified for several reasons. Firstly, Thajuddin is a figure recognized by Islamic scholars, lending credibility to his historical existence. Numerous Arabic texts, including works like the Qissat Shakarwati-Farmad, reference him, along with recorded hadiths attributed to Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. Moreover, the presence of a tomb dedicated to Thajuddin in Oman serves as tangible evidence supporting his existence. Therefore, considering the scholarly acknowledgment, textual references, and physical evidence, maintaining the wiki page on Thajuddin is logical and warranted.
    ManOfJusticekk (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting did not establish any clear consensus, but only few sock votes. Relisting again for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Winkler (surname). Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Winkler (disambiguation)

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. I don't believe that the politician meets WP:DABMENTION, as they are hardly even mentioned at Junge Generation. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I messed that up. Thank you for fixing my stupid mistake. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion lacked specificity, it's not evident from the deletion nomination that BEFORE was done, and "looks notable to me" comments are not useful in any way, shape or form, I can't tell whether the article was even read. I don't find most of the comments in the AFD persuasive. Maybe a return trip to AFD in six months would be warranted. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Staats

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

Does not seem to clear notability requirements as an academic or businessman. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he does meet notability requirements. He is the research director at the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars at the Biosphere 2, affiliated with the University of Arizona. He is also the lead developer of SIMOC an interactive simulator built on NASA data that is on the National Geographic's website. At a NASA Human Research Program conference this year, NASA researchers even know him. Additionally, a number of recent technical papers in peer reviewed journals related to life support systems include him as an author and sometimes as a senior author. I can help update his webpage in the next month or so. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to specific coverage per our general notability guideline, or better, our notability guideline for academics? Remsense诉 02:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from a spaceflight perspective there is sufficient notability here: https://biosphere2.org/about/leadership-directory (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete Reviewing the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Staas appears to have undertaken considerable research but does not pass the threshold for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Being recognized by NASA researchers also does not constitute "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity," but I recognize that there could be documentation of notability that is missing. Additionally, I am concerned by the fact that the original author of this article was paid by Staas to write it and, after COI issues were explained to the author, the page was edited by Staats himself. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seem to be ongoing challenges to quality. Vegantics (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Vegantics, Soft Deletion is not possible if any editor has argued to Keep an article. Or if the article has been subject to a PROD or prior AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included his position as Research Director, developer of SIMOC a web interface simulator listed under Nat Geo for modeling life support systems. I have also listed a couple of publications for research he has done in modeling life support systems. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added content related to Staats' position as research director and current work being done on modeling life support systems. These are verifiable on a university website and by publications, respectively, but these were deleted. Why? Spacesurgeon (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks notable to me. Sufficient sources that meets GNG. Mevoelo (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Federal Highway 18

Mexican Federal Highway 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this highway exists. The article doesn't have any information about where it begins or ends or what area it serves, and the only reference is to a general highway map of all of Mexico that doesn't seem to have a Federal Highway 18 marked on it. I couldn't find any other sources to confirm this highway is real either. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a random look at various entries of highways, it looks like the sources are all Spanish-language PDF. Inasmuch as the sourcing seems to be like that in all I've looked at, perhaps this really is a project issue, not an AFD issue. What's the point in deleting a handful, when all the articles use that PDF sourcing as a basis? — Maile (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused, the person who bulk-created the article also automatically tagged the talk page with relevant wikiprojects. What makes you think the projects consider this an "ongoing project"? I'm also confused why you think "Stubs are a vital part of Wikipedia" is a justification for having an article on something that may not exist? Things that are effectively unsourced are not vital. I'm also baffled what I'm supposed to learn by looking at the navbox. That was also made by the article's creator and has nothing about sourcing. In fact, it links List of Mexican Federal Highways which does not even have number 18 on it! Reywas92Talk 00:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've failed to understand this reply, @Maile66! Does it exist or not? The article is technically blank (there's no content). And I can't understand how you have decided to mention WikiProjects as if they have anything to defend this article. Even the "ongoing project" term that you have used was unnecessary, as we all know there's no such thing happening, especially for a non-existent route designation. It's clear this article must be deleted. GeographicAccountant (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Independent notability of this specific highway has not be demonstrated. Instead of creating a mass of stubs, it would be more productive to create one article about highways in Mexico, list individually notable highways within that article, and spin that off into articles should sufficient sourcing be shown. Cortador (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:V issues. No notability issue that I can see, if it exists per WP:GEOROAD, but I also spent time trying to find any reliable source to suggest that it exists and came up empty. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus among P&G-based views is that NPOL does not apply in this case. In the absence of NPOL, there is clear consensus that NBIO/GNG is not met. Owen× ☎ 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Wielgosz

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

Last AfD was about 10 months ago. This person lacks significant coverage. She does not even get 1 gnews hit, which is unusual for an ambassador from a major country. None of the keep !votes last time provided any examples of sources. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's almost nothing available in independent secondary RS, and certainly nothing SIGCOV. She does not meet NPOL, which merely presumes notability anyway, so she has to meet GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Inigo of Urach

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, the only claim to fame is being a grandchild of a person, who was considered to the position of Lithuanian king, but never actually became one. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them. Royals that never ruled anything also have articles dedicated to them, e.g. Iniga von Thurn und Taxis.--+JMJ+ (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you know a bunch of non-notable modern day nobles have articles about them, and they never ruled anything in their lives. Also, his grandfather was officially elected as the King, whether you like it or not. If anything, this is more worth keeping than the other articles about people of noble/royal blood who are part of deposed dynasties. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm was elected, but this election was reversed after a few months by the same body. It was also never accepted by Germany, which controlled Lithuania at the time. His grandson never laid claim to the throne, nor did any major political party or group ever do so. Inigo is a completely private person. Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use the existence of another article to prove that this article should remain. See WP:WAX for more info. ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because other "self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them" is not an argument to keep this specific article WP:ALLORNOTHING. And I would also be in favor of deleting Iniga von Thurn und Taxis for what it's worth.
As for his grandfather being elected king or not that doesn't make Inigo notable as notability is not inherited WP:INHERIT. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update - the Iniga von Thurn und Taxis article has been deleted for lack of notability for what it's worth. D1551D3N7 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comment on the sources found by StellarHalo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for the verification of new sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John LeCompt

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

Nominating for deletion on the basis of WP:DEL-REASON#8. I researched the topic of the article, after doing comprehensive research on the band Evanescence for which the subject was hired as a tour musician in 2003 and exited in 2007, and found that:

  • It does not meet WP:GNG, as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The media coverage I found that mentioned the subject was largely routine, alongside some press releases (WP:SBST and WP:NOTPROMO). I did not find significant converge that addresses the subject directly and in detail, and would provide sufficient content for a bio article that consists of more than "joined and left x,y,z band", "played/has a credit on x,y,z record", which is routine musician info that is mentioned in band or album articles (WP:WITHIN). Notability is not inherited from being a member of or associated with bands.
  • Does not meet WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interested, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity".
  • Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. ... If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."
  • Does not meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, including "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability." Lapadite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapadite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6, is a member of at least two notable bands and a touring member of another. See also WP:NSMT, an essay I wrote explaining why we have the criteria as we do. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't "significant independent coverage" that supports that the subject is a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". WP:MUSICBIO also states: "regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. ... notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources." Nearly all the content on this article, which was added without sources by mostly one person in the 2000s according to the page history, can be deleted because there isn't independent, reliable sources to support it. And there are bands linked in the article that are likely not notable either. The little that is in reliable sources pertaining to this subject can be and is mentioned in a band article or album article, which mostly boils down to: "x joined in y year, exited in z year", "x has credit on y record". There are other non-notable individuals associated with bands that are mentioned in the relevant band or album articles.
    Notability is not inherited: Any given band being notable does not automatically make anyone and everyone associated with it a notable individual. Any person getting "brief bursts of news coverage", especially in relation to routine band news - such as a band releasing something, touring, the exit of a member - does not automatically make them a notable individual. The other guidelines I linked also note this, such as, "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" in the main notability guideline. Lapadite (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Jclemens. The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources, the MUSICBIO case is inarguable, and redirection per WP:NOPAGE is undesirable as there is no clear target. Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't misrepresent the sourcing in deletion discussions. "The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources" - it is not, and that's plainly evident by looking at the references. The few refs are about routine band news and an old Yamaha site with standard label/PR-fed content. Nothing that remotely supports individual notability based on WP's guidelines. From my research, there aren't multiple independent sources focused on this subject, not even from the early 2000s when he played on tour during the band Evanescence's major commercial success. There are also several bands linked in this article that are not notable, and their articles are templated as such. Lapadite (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussion and multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Pandalam

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

I couldn't find enough information about this person from reliable sources. There's not much evidence showing they played a major role in the movies listed. I tried redirecting their page to a film they directed called "Shefeekkinte Santhosham," but it was reverted by the author. The subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources or meet the criteria for being recognized as an actor or filmmaker. So, it should be deleted or simply redirect it to the film they directed. GSS 💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : He passes the 3rd criteria of Notability which says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " . He is the Director & Writer and also an actor of the feature film Shefeekkinte Santhosham . It is a well known movie and have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews in major newspapers. In addition this criteria passes for his television series Gulumaal for which he is the host and program producer. It has also been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles. Thus clearly passes notability. Additionally he is also an actor acted in 3 other movies for which references has been added as well. Passes WP:GNG Mischellemougly (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mischellemougly (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    Filmmakers who have only directed or produced one film may fall under WP:BLP1E, which is why I redirected the article to his film. Regarding Anup Pandalam, he has garnered media attention solely for his directorial debut, with no evidence supporting a major acting role in the films listed. Additionally, it remains unclear how he meets the criteria of GNG when there is no significant coverage of him in any source. Furthermore, the Gulumaal is not a notable TV show as required by Wikipedia policies, and the roles of host and program producer are not considered major roles in such productions. GSS 💬 08:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) updated 08:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR as director of at least one notable film Shefeekkinte Santhosham in 2022. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (NB- I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, a film is not an event).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rydex64 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus eventually formed that sufficient sourcing exists to support an article on this topic. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museumand

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

I have nominated the article 'Museumand' for deletion. The creator disagrees so I have not treated it as non-controversial or simple. There is a discussion at the article's Talk page. In my opinion, the article fails on WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliabilesources and WP:WhatWikipediaisnot. In summary, the article describes an ostensibly extant museum and group of which there is insufficient evidence of existence, notability, verifiability or reliability. I will take no further part in the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Caribbean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the article creator I have expanded and updated this article substantially since Eastmain Emmentalist '(edited to correct name of prposer PamD 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)) expressed their concerns yesterday, and I believe that Museumand is a notable organisation as shown by their current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum and the one last year at Nottingham Castle, their podcast chosen as "best of the week" by The Guardian, and their other activities. Yes, their web site is currently displaying "Maintenance", but the fact that Google searches are still returning both the home page and many subpages suggests that the website and organisatiion have been alive and well in the very recent past: I have provided archived links to get past this, probably temporary, problem. Even if it was to turn out that the organisation is now defunct, that would not affect its notability: Wikipedia records history as well as the present.[reply]
The nominator, in talk page discussion, accused me of WP:OR because I found a catalogue entry for the book to verify it's existence: not my understanding of OR. They also appeared to suggest I was part of a PR operation for Museumand: my only connection with it is that I heard about it (almost certainly on BBC Radio 4, very likely on Woman's Hour) thought it sounded Notable, and created the article. I am not a paid editor and have no COI. PamD 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator and so will not take part in the keep/delete discussion. However, for clarity I should reply to the comments above. In my comments at the talk page I write; "I absolutely presume that the Wikipedia article was created in good faith". My reference to WP:WWIN is instead to the way PR is designed to enter discourse and is often repeated by others in good faith. If I felt that WP:COI applied, I would have said that. As it happens, I do think searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR. Finally, When I nominated this article for AfD I made it clear that I was not using one of the simpler procedures since the article originator disagreed. It does not seem quite right, to me, that the article originator should now vote on their own article. But there it is. I appreciate, of course, that the final decision will not simply be a matter of adding up the votes. I'll leave it at that. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR: the existence of the book was queried, I looked it up in Library Hub Discover, the union catalogue of most UK libraries, and found a record for it. WP:OR is defined as "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Is it suggested that Leeds City Library's catalogue is unreliable? PamD 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking any position as to notability but @Emmentalist you're not quite correct on two elements. The author is welcome and encouraged to participate at AfD, and OR has nothing to do with researching/verifying the existence of a book via a library catalogue. As nominator, you don't !vote because your nomination is considered a vote for deletion in itself but you're otherwise welcome and encouraged to participate as well. Star Mississippi 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this, @Star Mississippi Very helpful and educative point very much taken! I don't think such a book exists, by the way. As you imply, my main arguments relate not to whether a pseudo-book exists on one local authority library catalogue but to the separate issues of sufficient and verifiable coverage. Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist Note this which says "The exhibition ... is accompanied by a book of the same title (available for sale at the Castle shop). You really don't think it exists? PamD 23:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, @PamDI take @Star Mississippi's point. Let me make this one appeal to commonsense and goodwill. There is no doubt in my mind that two people identifiable on some websites, who call themselves Museumand, have written some blogposts and contributed to several institutions' displays on the UK's Windrush generation. I have argued here and at the Talkpage that this is most creditable but not sufficient of itself for WP:Notability and does not satisfy other WP policies. There is nothing to stop you revisiting Museumand in future so see if things have changed. I am also concerned, as a subsidiary point, that the article seeks to further claims of founding a national museum when they do not seem true in any substantive sense (for example, a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building with a large variety visitable exhibits. A 'museum without walls' is a catchphrase, not a museum). I am not super-keen to get into a theological debate about what constitutes a book/pamphlet/pseudo-book, to be honest. I suspect that some combination of ISBN number, publisher, author, etc, might be in order. The main thing here is that a statement in a website that something is available somewhere (but where there is no other evidence of that something's availability in book form) is not of itself sufficiently notable evidence of existence. At root, my argument is simply based upon the policies laid out earlier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building: not so, nowadays. See Virtual museum. PamD 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @PamD. I took a look. You'll see there's a need for verification at that article. In the end, it seems to simply re-badge other things (databases, museum enhancements, etc) as museums in themselves. I think there's a profound epistemological question in play there. What next? I create a 'virtual' display around a horse and it's actually a kind of horse? Tbh, I'll leave that to others. :-) Defo nice chatting, though! Emmentalist (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emmentalist You might think that a choir is a group of people who sing together in one place: but a Virtual choir can produce some amazing performances without ever meeting each other, or the conductor or the sound engineers. Times change. PamD 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point @PamD. Thinking now........... Emmentalist (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emmentalist I saw the above comment because this page is on my watchlist, but your "ping" didn't work because a ping has to be added in an edit which includes a signature, and your two-step process won't have had that effect. The trick is to add a new or replacement signature if you add a ping, or a second ping, as an afterthought or correction. There's always something new to learn about editing. PamD 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for this. Noted! I wondered why it looked wrong. Clearly, I have a lot to learn. And, frankly, not just about Wikipedia. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has been expanded today with well-sourced content about Museumand's collaborations with a range of organisations over several years. PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Note that Museumand's website, which recently reported "undergoing maintenance" or some similar term, now says "We'll be back soon". PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments above by the article's originator don't change things at all. The WP:GNG policies, and all the others referred to at the deletion nomination are clear and none of these new references satisfy them. The website status has no bearing on this discussion at all. For completeness, the new references are as follows:
    1. An archived webpage with no verifiable status and no publisher.
    2. A 2015 article from the webpage of a local media outlet serving Nottingham which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand (i.e. the title of the Wikipedia article).
    3. An archived webpage with no verifiable status. It appears to be a page from the Museumand website, which in turn has been unavailable since 2022 at the latest.
    4 and 5. Undated University-branded webpages which each make a reference to Museumand.
    6. A 2018 book title which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.
    7. An undated Nottingham local history webpage which refers to Museumand.
    8. A 2018 BBC webpage which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.
    9. A 2019 "Feast" website article which refers to Museumand.
    10. A 2021 University website which refers to Museumand in an event date.
    11. A 2020 webpage with no verifiable status (and no publisher which describes in detail the only two people ever associated with Museumand in any resource.
    12. A website with no verifiable status which refers to Museumand.
    13. A Hull news website which refers to Museumand.
    14. A website describing Nottingham Castle which refers to Museumand.
    15. A Nottingham City Council website which refers to Museumand.
    16. A PR company website which refers to Museumand.
    17. A Guardian webpage describing a podcasts which refers to the presenters of one as linked to Museumand.
    18. Webpage descriptor and link to podcast at 17 (above).
    19. A webpage which refers to Museumand.
    20. A blog written by the owners of Museumand, related to 19 (above).
    21. A 2020 blogpage (archived from the inaccessible Museumand website?) written by one of the Museumand owners.
    22. Ditto 21 (although some of the text appears unavailable).
    As has already been said at nomination, and noted by one editor who recommended deletion, the Guardian reference to a podcast related to the mother and daughter who appear to own Museumand might, if supported elsewhere, satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not supported; nothing else listed here reflects WP:GNG acceptable sources. The article fails on all the policies referred to at the nomination.
    No-one is questioning that two people in Nottingham have done excellent and worthy work in helping local Nottingham Museums and universities, and a couple further afield, mount displays; but Museumand is simply not a notable entity (indeed there is little evidence that it presently exists) which justifies a Wikipedia article. I have made the effort here to flag this all not to be mean, quite the contrary, but simply to uphold Wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if editors who make comments here do also make a delete/keep recommendation as this discussion already has too much from me and the originator and is on its final re-list. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emmentalist, a few of your observations are made because the source does not mention Museumand by name. Didn't you read the discussion, including my post above, before making them? Until recently this was known as the National Caribbean Heritage Museum. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Phil Bridger. Of course I read the discussion, including your comment. Here is my reply: 1. The title of the article is "Museumand". It is clearly relevant if a reference does not mention that name. 2. I have gone to a great deal of effort to lay out how and why the article does not satisfy a number of WP policies, including WP:Notability. That includes following through on your suggestions of places to look for valid and reliable references. Can I just ask politely if you have read my fulsome comments?I appreciate that you have made the effort to make a brief comment here, but tbh it would be more useful if you took a view on delete/keep. If you feel that it should be retained, you simply have to say that you feel the references provided satisfy WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources and vote 'keep'. I've made a genuine effort to justify the delete nomination; there has been one delete vote and no-one has yet argued against my WP policy-based rationale. I'm not interested in engaging in a continuous argument with editors who are not prepared to express an opinion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emmentalist, no it is relevant irrelevant (typo pointed out by PamD) what name a source uses to reference the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I assume good faith, of course, and I an see that you have made many more edits at WP than me, but I honestly find it difficult to understand why editors would take the time to make what are in the end multiple ephemeral comments about minor points without making a keep/delete judgement, the latter being the point of this discussion. I've laid out many points in defence of the substantive nomination for deletion; why not simply express a view? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked all the statements above, but I'd point out that ref 8 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand", is about an exhibition "being run in conjunction with the Nottingham-based National Caribbean Heritage Museum." and the article later says "the National Caribbean Heritage Museum, also known as Museumand". PamD 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And ref 6 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is included because it has bibliographic info about the book mentioned in ref 5, so complements that source in supporting the statement in the article. PamD 17:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And ref 2 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is clearly discussing its origins. PamD 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and some of this concern can be solved with a redirect from National Caribbean Heritage Museum which is already in place so there really is no issue. @Emmentalist there is no need for someone to explicitly note Keep or Delete nor the article to explicitly mention the current name. It's still the same org and coverage transfers with it Star Mississippi 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Star Mississippi The substantive issue is whether the references satisfy the policies. There's really no way that they do, imho. However, I don't agree that there is meaningful evidence that there is truly 'an organisation' involved here at all. I've already commented above about the aggrandised nature of a claim of a National museum. But in any case, why not simply say whether you think it's a 'keep' or 'delete' based upon WP policies? I honestly feel I've done enough here. It's up to folk like you to take a view, I think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re ref 16: for "PR company" read "independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire. It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" (from its "About us"), and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day. PamD 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, let me re-word this as:
    Re ref 16: for what Emmentalist refers to as "PR company" read "a resource called Museums + Heritage Advisor which describes itself as 'independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire.' and says of itself 'It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create' (from its 'About us')", and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day.
    PamD 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references meet WP:THREE. Specifically, the BBC news article, which is independent, reliable and significant coverage of the National Caribbean Heritage Museum / Museumand; the Guardian article about the podcast; and the Museums and Heritage article. I see that the other references are not all independent, but they do verify that the organisation is involved with other notable organisations like the Bank of England and Oxford University. Tacyarg (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that the organisation is mentioned in a couple of books, Mother Country: Real Stories of the Windrush Children and Today: A History of our World through 60 years of Conversations & Controversies, both reliable sources, publisher is Hachette. I haven't added these to the article as they don't add any content to that already there, but it does show coverage of the organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR

I assume good faith from all editors here, but the comment above, full of transparent PR nonsense, is untrue and has made me worry whether PR interests might, one way or the other, be intruding into this discussion. M&H Ltd, which appears to be the source of some of the website references referred to in this discussion and is described by @PamD as; "a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" is a wholly privately-owned PR and events company[1] which self-describes elsewhere as; "an independent events and publishing company". I have made a genuine effort to show how this article does not conform to WP policies. I do not want to engage any further in what is beginning to feel to me like a discussion with an opaque purpose. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "described by" me as: I quoted their own self-description and made this quite clear. PamD 11:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10028315

COI?

The introduction of a heading, above, has disrupted the normal flow of an AfD discussion so I see no option but to introduce another such heading. @Emmentalist: has now suggested on my talk page that I may have a COI with Museumand.

In the interest of clarity, I disclose here an email which I sent to "hello@museumand.org" on 15 Feb:

Hallo

I created a Wikipedia article about Museumand a couple of years ago, I think after hearing Catherine and Lydia on Radio 4. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museumand, though someone else edited it to call you a "group" rather than a "museum".

Your website seems to be "under maintenance" and the person trying to delete the article (as "not notable" in Wikipedia's very specific terms) claims that it seems to have been so for some time, so that Museumand may or may not still exist. I can see that the SKN CIC records at Companies House are up to date, and that you've got a current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum. Is the web site likely to reappear in the near future? I hope so. Or, if Museumand has folded in the last few months, is there a newspaper or magazine or website article about its closure, which would help prove that it was notable, even if it no longer exists. (Wikipedia is about history as well as today).

Best wishes, anyway!

Pam

Is that COI? Or an attempt to improve the encyclopedia? I have had no reply, but I note that the website has changed from "Maintenance" to "Back soon" since I sent that email. I have had no other contact whatsover with Museumand, apart from hearing a radio feature about them in the first place and researching them online. PamD 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this a COI @PamD.
@Emmentalist your readings of policy & guidelines does not (edited Star Mississippi 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)) seem to agree with the general community's in several instances as I've noted above. You've made your case here, I suggest you let others weigh in. If you think there's a conduct issue, feel free to take it to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Star Mississippi So we're entirely clear, I followed the WP:COI process and opened a discussion at @PamDs Talk page, not here. If I may say, I honestly don't understand why you are prepared to take part to such a degree in a deletion discussion at the margins (i.e around minor points of quibble) rather than taking a delete/keep view on the substantive policies I've made a considerable effort to lay out. Perhaps you could help the process by take a keep/delete view based on the policies? Whichever view you take, it would be very helpful and constructive. For clarity re: COI, I will not confuse the AfD by discussing that here (it is at @pamD's talk page), but I will say that contacting Museumand and effecting a change at the website, and misdescribing a PR company (which I have indications may have a paid interest in the Museumand issue) as a community the relevant user might be part of, go well beyond Wikipedia article editing and quite possibly into WP:COI. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist you have chosen to badger participants who doesn't agree with your POV, beginning with saying @PamD shouldn't participate as article creator and misunderstanding or misapplying policies such as OR. Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position. But for future AfDs, please remember it's about discussion, not named !votes. As a closer, conversation helps more than the bolded portion. If you have a substantive case to back up your repeated COI allegations, please take them to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(afer edit conflict) I, for one, am genuinely undecided about the disposition of this article, but policy is that the decision should be made on the basis of sources for any name by which it has gone. There is far too much making of decisions before thought at AfD. The reverse should be done. This is a discussion, not a vote. And the idea that PamD has a conflict of interest is simply preposterous. You do yourself no favours by making such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) And I find it very hard to argue against someone named after cheese, which I just love.[reply]

AfD discussion so far

Hi, @PamD, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger. I nominated Museumand for deletion. I've provided, in my opinion, a great deal of evidence that the article does not satisfy WP policies. I've specified the relevant policies. WP:Notibility is perhaps the most significant one. In my view, @PamD has edged into WP:COI; I've provided reasoning for my view (although I do not suggest that it is not arguable) at the relevant Talk page as laid out as the first step at WP:COI. I have done all this in good faith. In response, @PamD has accused me of "trying to wreck" an article (I am simply trying to delete it as per WP policy) and I am now accused of badgering. In addition, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger have approached the discussion in a way which avoids taking a substantive view while offering, in my view, ephemeral comments which take no view at all on delete/keep. This is an AfD discussion and to seek to constrain it to marginal issues appears, to me, something which might limit discourse so that it does not reach a consensus/conclusion. As with all edits, this is a learning experience for me. I assume good faith on the part of all editors, but I am honestly puzzled as to why experienced editors are so unprepared to make a judgement against the criteria laid down in the relevant WP policies. I will leave my comments at that and move on. Thanks for taking the time to chat, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that @Star Mississippi, an admin, intervened above to point out Emmentalist's misunderstanding of the procedures for AfD (2:33 pm, 18 February 2024), and has since said Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position., which is an honourable position which has excluded them from making a !vote.
I am also tired of being accused of COI. My only connection with Museumand is that, having heard them featured in a radio programme, I decided to create an article about them, and I have since sent one, neutral, email which I copied above. Naturally, as the creator of the article, I do not want to see it deleted. I don't see the phrase "trying to wreck" anywhere: on my talk page I mentioned that Emmentalist seemed "intent on destroying" the article (let's face it, nominating an article at AfD is indeed an attempt to remove, wreck, destroy, obliterate, annihilate... all synonyms for "delete" in this context), but their determination to pursue this AfD certainly gives that impression, with their inaccurate statements such as that relating to reference 8 and repeated accusation of COI. PamD 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of your last 50 edits have involved trying to get this deleted. Coming on the heels of an account that was created to an AfD an article, it reads a little off @Emmentalist. Regardless of how this closes, I recommend you take a deep read into the policies and guidelines before another AfD. It will help ensure the process goes more smoothly. Star Mississippi 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have adhered strictly to all policies. You are welcome to examine my editing history, which I think you will find is careful, always in good faith and represents a proper application of policy. You refer to my editing of 2022: that AfD was indeed what brought me into editing as it was a very poor article; the article was deleted. You have, on the contrary, refused to take a position on the substantive matter of an AfD discussion; i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted. With great respect, I really feel that we've taken this discussion as far as we can. Perhaps other editors will express a view now, or alternatively an admin will close. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Malware#Grayware. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greynet

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

This article had 3 references which were not inline citations; the references it did have were all dead links. I've searched for 'greynet' but can only find a link to a literature service and a link to the article itself. The article has 82 pageviews in the last 30 days and before my edits, the last edit was from July 2020. The original author '63.192.141.33' has not posted on WP since June 2007. WP:GNG and possibly WP:ARTN. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a failed neologism. System administrators typically call this sort of thing "unauthorized software" nowadays. Omphalographer (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Malware#Grayware: The articles linked above either use a different definition, or are a synonym for Grayware (as the current Greynet article is). The sources on the Greynet page are either not longer accessible, or are weak, hence the suggestion of redirecting rather than merging. The synonym should be marked at the target (e.g. "(sometimes, Greynet)"). Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Leonardo Ortolani. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'ultima Burba

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't read Italian but I'm not seeing anything which would meet the notability standards on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Tetiꞌaroa. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetiaroa Airport

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

Not notable enough for inclusion as a standalone article. The airport definitely existed, but the airport does not pass the notability bar. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential merge targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 00:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are 3 different Merge targets suggested, an air carrier, an atoll or a resort. We need to whittle that down to one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Martin Heidegger#Language. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language speaks

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

Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Content only ever developed by one editor in March 2011. Does not explain the meaning of the phrase, which, to my non-specialist (but grad-level) knowledge is not considered especially important among Heidegger scholars. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: If anyone does turn up some good sources on this that establish notability (and, ideally, provide at least some clue to its meaning beyond what anyone might just guess), they might consider whether it would make sense to edit the article with an eye to merging it into the main Heidegger article. At present, that article says almost nothing about his work on language, which is a considerable omission; I'm not sure there's even anywhere that a wikilink would fit to an article devoted to narrowly expounding on this short phrase. Of course, to make up an example, if the phrase only becomes independently significant in being singled out by, say, Derrida, that would be a good justification for preserving a separate article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Heidegger. A quick search in German returned two scholar articles [38] [39] decscribing Heidegger's tautologies, as well as a generalist article [40].
I am not a Heidegger scholar, nor a professional translator, but this is what de.wiki has to say on the sentence: [Heidegger saw] language as the foundation of being and the natural disposition that makes the human itself human in the first place. It is not the human who speaks, but "language speaks"[152] and it is only through language that a human becomes a speaking being.
While I am not convinced this deserves a page on its own (and if so, it should have the original title in German), it should be included in the main article about the philosopher, especially as his work on language is quite significant. Broc (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - in an effort to be helpful, I have tried to find definitions to satisfy the above objections. This source seems to address this on page 6. This source seems to address it on page 29. This appears to be a whole publication on the topic. What they mean, whether they accurately interpret and translate Heidegger, I can't say. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing this research! I can't see the second source, but the first one would be worth preserving as a reference on the talk page in the event that we do decide to keep. However, I still think we're a long ways from establishing notability. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created a short section in the Heidegger article so there is now at least a possible target for a merger. It is still unclear to me, however, that there is enough content in this stub to meaningfully speak of merging—or that the phrase itself is of encyclopedia significance. (Heidegger's philosophy of language in general, needless to say, is another matter entirely.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a redirect to the section created by @Patrick J. Welsh but it would require at least some expansion; might get around to doing that; even though I am a linguist and respect Heidegger's legacy in this area, this is overall too minor to warrant a separate article. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine consensus for redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemeton TV

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

I'm not seeing enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:ORGCRITE. While there's a fair amount of PR for this company floating around (e.g. [41]), significant coverage is scarce. The best examples I was able to find were this writeup of a university course that they sponsor and this article about their GAA coverage acquisition, which despite a promising title turns out to be almost entirely quotes directly from Nemeton's executives. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Malviya

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

Non notable politician, failed WP:POLITICIAN, any political parties it cell does not mean he is passing WP:POLITICIAN, Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FuMP

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

There does not appear to be any reliable secondary sources or significant coverage outside of a couple brief mentions StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments since the last two relists. No point relisting again as the community doesn't seem to care if the article is deleted. Keep and redirect !votes are also not seconded in two weeks. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schulze STV

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

The article in its current form contains several unsubstantiated claims, e.g., about Schulze-STV satisfying Droop-Proportionality or monotonicity. Further, the method is not published in any peer-reviewed work or used by anyone else except for Schulze. As such it does not seem to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikp97 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Schulze STV" is also known as "Schulze proportional". Although the paper "The Schulze Method of Voting" (arXiv:1804.02973) hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal because of its sheer length, it is cited in academic papers and frequently mentioned in discussions because of the Condorcet criterion for multi-winner elections this paper purports. Markus Schulze 11:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkusSchulze: am I right in assuming you are the Markus Schulze who invented the method described in the article? While I am honoured to be in the presence of the mathematician who came up with the polynomial-complexity Schulze method (and to a lesser extent, the exponential-complexity Schulze STV...), you should probably review WP:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles about your work, or participating in discussions about those articles. We value your contribution to Wikipedia, none of which appear to be tainted by bias or self-promotion. However, to maintain neutrality and editorial independence, editors with an apparent conflict of interest must identify themselves as such, and ideally, abstain from editing pages related to themselves or their work. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line

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

I decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Selah, Washington

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

Prod was declined based on naive reading of the newspapers. This is another of those communities that purportedly grew up around the train station. According to the Pomona, Washington article, The Selah train station was renamed Pomona. Additionally, This news article (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-east-selah/140757627/) about a bridge being built at Pomona station states the East Selah and Pomona station are the same. That article also makes no mention of a town being there.

East Selah is Grange district, a valley in the grange district and a river in the valley. The newspapers don't contain any mentions definitively proving this was a town. While many of the mentions of East Selah are non specific about the nature of the place. Many other mentions are specific, referring to it as a district and valley and the residents thereof being from East Selah. While none are found saying it is town.

Key examples: This news article https://www.newspapers.com/image/457179495/?terms=East%20Selah&match=1&clipping_id=94435529 gives some description of the East Selah valley in 1910 and describes it as "out in the sage brush." No mention of a town.

This is pretty decent example of an article where releative clear that it is just a valley where ranchers live. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-east-selah-valley/141041529/ James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I realized that the first article about the bridge does mention a town in the area, it's just not called East Selah.James.folsom (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is actually a nondescript area of a bunch of houses and such strung out along a road on the other side of the river from Selah proper. At best it may be a sort of neighborhood but not a notable settlement unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything that I turned up, from maps to the biography of Frank Crowe, turned out to be related to the Bureau of Reclamation's 60-year Yakima Project, which someone really should write about at Yakima River#River modifications or somewhere. Pfaff's book, OCLC 49390736, is a good start and shows why it would be absurd to write about it in this article. There's pretty much nothing that I can find where East Selah is the topical focus, nothing verifiable to say in this article. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncle G is spot on here, and that Yakima project is a thing. It seem's like Wikipedia just attracts editors that want to OCD lists into many articles. And, people just write about crap that they think is important instead finding something that is important to write about. James.folsom (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 1930 US census showed 324 people living specifically in East Selah, and a patent application from a resident there in 1936. And this is from late 2023 showing it's still at least some sort of community, even if not on GEOLAND grounds: [46] So a populated place at least once. At the same time there are a lot of references to "East Selah district" instead of a town - but it's the same with Moxee, which is clearly a current populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In response to SportingFlyers new evidence. I have done additional searches of newspapers from 1925 to 1940. I found one mention of the east selah school district in 1926. I contend that a town existing in 1930 or 1936 would be mentioned in the local papers. Furthermore, I checked the archival images of the 1930 census on Ancestry.com. The forms filled out by the census taker has blanks for State, County, Incorporated place, Unincorporated place, and Township or other division of county. The census taker recorded State: Washington, County: Yakima, Township or other division: East Selah precinct #43. Incorporated place, and unincorporated place were left blank. Ancestry's drop down box categorized it as an election precinct. The 2023 reference, and the sources from a search I did around the PFAS incident all steadfastly refuse to refer to the place as town or a city or anything other than an "area". It is a zip code. I don't have enough info to find the patent application, but East Selah is probably the filers post office. And we know how much that counts for anything. I'm happy to look up the patent if Sporting Flyer would provide the patent number. Nobody has produced any sources that explicitly describe East Selah as a town/unincorporated place/city. It's impossible to prove it never existed, but we can't even prove it does.James.folsom (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to continue with the census research, because we really should consider them all. This doesn't appear on the 1950 census. The 1940 census describes it: ELECTION PRECINCT 43 EAST SELAH, UNNAMED ISLANDS, ISLANDS (PARTS). The map from 1940 (free with login) https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/3028/images/m-a3378-00069-00959?ssrc=&backlabel=Return. In 1940 it appears as other division and unincorporated place, but the map is clearly of a rural area. We've already talked about the 1930 census. For the 1920 census East Selah contains parts of East Selah extension. There is no unincorporated place option, incorporated place has an x. For the 1910 Census, East Selah contains parts of Selah and is listed as township or other division. Doesen't exist in 1900, 1890, 1880, 1870 had no divisions and State was territory.James.folsom (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. My glances through genealogy sites turned up references to east Selah (lowercase E in "east") in "History of the Yakima Valley, Washington; comprising Yakima, Kittitas, and Benton Counties", published in 1919, and available at Archive.org, so I was ready to pass on this proposal without comment. However, I am bothered by the title of the book "The Selah story : history of the Selah, East Selah and Wenas Valley in Yakima County, Washington" with capitalized E in East Selah, published in 1984, in this catalog reference here. The book is not available online that I can find, but combined with observations above from SportingFlyer, who also posted links to capital-E East Selah references that I'm not able to wave it away as a simple railroad siding. All I have to go on is the title of a book, but it creates enough of a suggestion of WP:GEOLAND that I'm slightly on the keep side of the fence. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That title indicates East Selah Valley as what it is denoting. There are a Selah Valley and a Wenas Valley.

      This long narrow valley, for which no general name is recognized, is divided into several minor portions. About 20 miles east of where the Yakima crosses it there is a low divide, due to the same gentle north and south axis of elevation that determines the eastern end of Moxee valley; between this divide and Yakima river, the depression is known as Selah valley.

      […]

      Selah valley ends on the west at Yakima river, but the same geographic depression continues Westward and is known in part as Wenas valley and in part as Naches valley. The nomenclature that has been fastened on the country is widely at variance with the geologic structure as well as with the topographic relief, a fact which makes the task of describing the country difficult.

      — Russell, Israel Cook (1893). A geological reconnoissance in central Washington. Bulletin. Vol. 108. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Service. doi:10.3133/b108., pp.60–61
      East Selah Valley is a geographic feature. The Selah Valley contains Selah, Washington much as the Moxee Valley contains the city of Moxee, Washington. But the only thing that I've found that is documented for East Selah is the pumping station, which is part of the aforementioned Yakima Project, and the tunnel for the Roza canal between the East Selah Valley and the Moxee Valley, which is not really about a purported "community" named East Selah.

      Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      We literally have a news report from 2023 that Washington state is offering free livestock testing to East Selah residents. There's more to this than just a pumping station. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This whole line of reasoning is silly and not well thought out. Ask yourself who needs livestock testing? Why farmers who raise cattle do, don't you think. Gee, I wonder where Farmers with cattle live. OOH I bet they live in a rural area, don't you think. This source is literally telling you that East Selah is rural farming community. James.folsom (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback, Uncle G. I agree that the use of East Selah in the title of that book refers to the valley, not a settlement. Before changing my opinion, I decided to do a basic Google search to see what comes up. When you narrow the term "East Selah" to the site:yakimaherald.com the local newspaper, it does give a pretty good picture that the term East Selah (capitalized) does appear to be widely used to refer to a specific area distinct from the town of Selah, and there appears to be some degree of independent notability due to some water contamination issues from the Army. The Google link is here. Look at it and see what you think. One thing that holds me back about some of these articles is that it uses East Selah in the headlines, but some of the photo captions refer to the pictured people as residents of Selah, such as the articles "Army to install filtration systems for forever chemicals in East Selah homes this fall" and "Opinion: Has the Army forgotten about East Selah?" RecycledPixels (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an area has a name and people live there, doesn't make it a popoulated place. There are no reliable sources for this article, and no one has presented any proof this is anything more than a rural area. Nobody here has produced any shred of anything that plainly states that East Selah is a city, town, or community. All the sources I've seen, and that others have dredged up have never clearly indicated what they mean when they say the residents of East Selah. And, as RecycledPixel has pointed out, the residents have been described as being from Selah as opposed to East Salah. All these sources leave it unclear whether they mean the valley, the zipcode or city(if it exists). In my experience (and think this is plainly obvious to everyone not grasping at straws) if a community/town/village/city exists, you can find a source that says it's a community/town/village/city relatively quickly and easily. When you have to go to the extremes we have here, and only find sources that are non specific about the type of place, then you must conclude it either doesn't exist, or doesn't have enough sourcing to be an article on Wikipedia. If any one of those army news articles said "the citizens of the town of East Selah", then this would be case closed. But, not one article that does that has been turned up. I'm quite certain there would be at least one instance of that, if it were true. I should also point out that there are more than a small handful of sources that specifically say it's just a rural area. Like every census for example. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, it looks like a No consensus closure. I'm not optimistic of editors jumping into this discussion at this point but those are the alternatives I see, relisting or no consensus. Thanks to the editors who so far have searched high and low for relevant sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think that the Times got that phraseology from us. In a pre-WP era I would think they were more likely to have called it a "neighborhood". Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just conjecture. The term "unincorporated community" pre-dates us. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Well, none of those articles that you posted actually state that this is an unicorporated community. It would be happy to concede if any one could produce proof that it's an unincorporated community. Those newspapers articles could easily be talking about a a rural area or a Yakima suburb. James.folsom (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the Seattle Times article: Over the past week, Army officials and contractors visited households in this Yakima County unincorporated community to discuss the installation of point-of-entry-treatment system filters ... SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::Well if it is an unincorporatedDo you realize that is literally the only source on the entire internet James.folsom (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:GEOLAND is permissive towards unincorporated communities and that's how sources have described this place. ~Kvng (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources? James.folsom (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seattle Times. Stop WP:BLUDGEONING. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Seattle Times article above and other sources clearly identify this as a distinct, identifiable, and notable unincorporated community, not just a scattered rural area in a certain compass direction from the city. Reywas92Talk 01:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No those articles never state that it is an unincorporated place as opposed to a neighborhood or rural area. James.folsom (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being ridiculous, the Seattle Times article literally calls it that and has a map showing its location. There's no functional difference between any of those, and there's clearly enough sources to identify this as a notable neighborhood, area, or place. Other sources over many decades that use the name to specify a distinct place where people live include [51][52][53][54]. I'm the guy who started going after non-notable places years ago including many fake ones in WA made by the same editor as this, but this place certainly has enough coverage that a standalone article is appropriate. Reywas92Talk 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Out of who knows how many untold hours that have been spent (I've probably spent at least 8) to establish the the actual identity of East Selah, there is a single primary source that refers to it as an unincorporated community. That source being the Seattle times, a non local paper. There are numerous sources that make it clear that in the past it was simply a rural area. Even, the PFAS news articles that the keep voters are citing as proof of legally recognized place point out that part of the problem is damage to the East Seleh cattle growers (The area on satellite even now, is just rural farmland). But at the end of the "hair splitting", of course it's unincorporated, because everywhere that isn't incorporated is unincorporated. Unincorporated places are not legally recognized and not presumptive notable per WP:GEO. Therefore all the Seattle times article proves is that this location must meet WP:N. Since the current keep argument is about the modern day East Selah being a legally recognized place, the sources about the Valley and grange district East Selah don't apply, and modern day East Selah doesn't have sufficient sources to establish notability. The news paper articles cited are primary sources, and there are no secondary sources so it is not possible to meet WP:GNG. The PFAs event while likely notable, this notability is not transferable and East Selah would only warrant a mention in the article about the PFAS event.James.folsom (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came to this process as an uninvolved admin intending to close. In the nomination, I noticed the nominator chided as "naive" the reading of editor who removed the prod. I thought this characterization unwarranted. Seeing some issues in the discussion, I've read both the Pomona discussion and this one and have decided to make a keep assertion in both processes. User:James.folsom was wise to strikethrough some of their comments above. User:Kvng was quite correct when they warned of BLUDGEONING, which could be reasonably charged against the nominator, who has drawn a number of conclusions not proven by the sourcing. BusterD (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your points are well taken, and I'm learning as I go. But, they are not the basis for a keep vote. James.folsom (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Surgery (album)

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

The band has just been nominated (by me) for deletion. The band was already twice deleted from Hewiki. The band's other album has just been redirected, as the band article was still there. This album has been deleted in a previous AfD and was recreated. Any and all are non-notable. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM from sources presented here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural Keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and there are no editors arguing for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nera Corsi

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

It was created by a hoax/NOTHERE user who has since been blocked. I've previously AFD'd their pages. This particular page is more complex, as the hoax creator has crafted it deceptively. They have mashed up various sources that mention the subject's name, added historical images, and done everything possible to make it difficult to easily verify the authenticity of the claims. After checking the cited sources, I found that some of them do not support the facts stated in the article. Some sources, such as [55], don't even mention the subject at all. I also checked Wikipedia Library and couldn't find any organized or in-depth source detailing her life.

It appears that a person named Nera Corsi did exist in the 15th century, but they did not lead the life described in this article. In summary, this is a hoax article that combines sources and images mentioning the subject's name to create a veneer of legitimacy but is filled with misinformation and fabricated stories. Even if the subject was notable, this article cannot be relied upon as factual due to its pervasive inaccuracies. As per new findings, I'm withdrawing this nom. But I'd still question the notability of the subject, agreeing with User:3 kids in a trenchcoat's opinions regarding the subject's notability. X (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So I've only done a fairly cursory search, and only in English, but just about everything in the article checks out. This book from 2018 says on page 20 that Nera's tomb is "the only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence", which is probably her main claim to significance. On page 132 the author says that "the function of the Sassetti Chapel was to house the tombs of Francesco Sassetti and his wife Nera Corsi", and a caption on page 133 dates her tomb specifically to 1485. Pages 31 and 32 also briefly talk about her portrayal in Domenico Ghirlandaio's portrait of her, but this isn't really relevant to the article.
Then this book from 2000 and this one from 1981 (only available in snippet view) both briefly describe Nera's tomb and note that its decoration appears to be a pun on her name; they don't say anything about her life, but they at least corroborate the image gallery currently in the article, so it's not a hoax.
This book, which is cited in the article, was the last source I checked, but I'm putting it here because most of what the article says about Nera's life is in here. It shows her in a family tree of the Sassetti family, with dates of birth, death, and marriage for her and her children. It doesn't really seem to say anything else about her, though. So it seems that the first three sentence-paragraphs in the "life" section of the article are sourced from basically a chart. It's not a bad source; it's good for establishing the dates of birth and death and whatnot, but I don't think it's really a significant mention.
I could also find some other (prose, non-chart) information about her life in other sources: this book (first page of chapter 11; I can't see the page number] briefly mentions that she was 15 years old when she married Francesco Sassetti in 1458 (he was apparently 37 years old then, ewww) and that she came from a prominent Florentine family that was "also closely allied with the Medici". This book from 1990, on the other hand, says her family came from Fiesole, so I'm not sure which is more accurate. Finally, this website I see that her son Teodoro apparently died in 1478 and then she gave birth to a second son also named Teodoro a few months later. I'm not sure that this site really constitutes a good source, though.
So the bulk of Nera's current article can be traced back to sources that predate the article's creation. The only parts I could not verify are (A) the claim that her tomb is "the only woman's tomb not only in Florence but in all of Italy from the 15th century", which seems like a massive overstating of what Maria DePrano said (which I quoted above); (B) the immediately following claim that her tomb has become "a historical and cultural landmark", which probably applies more to the Sassetti Chapel as a whole than her tomb specifically; and (C) some of the specifics about her family, like her father being a powerful banker or her being born in Florence. Most of the article's last paragraph I also didn't bother checking, but it's mostly background about the chapel's construction and it can probably also be verified, possibly already in DePrano's book.
So the article is not a hoax, but I'm not sure if it meets notability guidelines. "The only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence" seems like an overly-narrow qualifier to me, and none of the sources contains much more than a trivial mention of Nera herself. It's mostly related to her tomb, or to the painting of her, or her marriage and family. While I would personally rather see the article kept, I think a merge into the Sassetti Chapel article would probably make the most sense. However, I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for 15th-century Italian noblewomen, and she may satisfy those. I also haven't checked any Italian-language sources, and those might have a more in-depth biography of her. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This article is most decidedly not a hoax. Talk about a failure of WP:BEFORE. Even a cursory search on Google Scholar or JSTOR would reveal that much. There are dozens of high quality sources. I'll add a few to the article to make my point, but this isn't something I'm really interested in editing. On the other hand nom should consider withdrawing this AfD, as it's extraordinarily misguided. Central and Adams (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Xu

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

Only 1 article links to this List of fashion designers. I'm not convinced she meets WP:BIO for her work in fashion or career in nuclear medicine. Sources 2 and 3 are primary. This source is just a one line mention. Source 5 is dead. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet spot (sports)

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

Unsourced since 2009, mostly a dictionary definition DrowssapSMM 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Withdraw: article has been significantly improved. DrowssapSMM 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What do those editors arguing Delete think about the sources brought up in this discussion? Could any of those advocating Keep add them to the article? If this subject is mentioned elsewhere, then why isn't anyone arguing for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD? This is a juggling act.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The above sourcing covers just baseball and cricket. For tennis, there's this article from a university engineering department magazine which offers a rather large section dedicated to the sweet spot concept; at the very bottom it also cites as one of its references H. Brody, ”The Physics of Tennis II: The ‘sweet spot’.” American Journal of Physics, vol. 49, pp. 816, 1981., which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal offering dedicated coverage of this concept. Then there's this book published by a university press; chaper 2 is titled The Sweet Spots of a Tennis Racket and spans 16 pages (23-38). Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing is adequate. This is more than dictionary definition and I see lots of room for expansion. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We've been given lots of sources about the baseball sweet spot, the cricket sweet spot, the tennis sweet spot, etc. What we're lacking are sources about the sweet spot in sports generally. Are there good sources discussing the concept as it applies to all sports. So while the concept relates to many sports, I'm still not convinced that we need an article on it. As I noted above the concept can be covered for specific sports, either within an existing article or even as separate article if there's enough content to justify it. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be a WP:BROADCONCEPT page:

    Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics.

    —Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some very good points to consider. I'd argue there's enough sourcing to justify separate articles on the sweet spots for baseball, cricket, and tennis if a split is a palpable resolution. However, there is also plenty of generalized interconnected coverage of this concept across all sports, tying them together; some examples:
  • On page 719 of this book, it says: If we compare baseball and tennis with cricket, baseball bats are made up of solid wood or hollow aluminum barrels and tennis rackets are made up of composites. All the batsmen know that there is a special spot on a cricket bat where the shots feel very smooth. It sometimes feels so good that there is almost no sensation at all that the bat hit the ball. It is the same with a tennis racquet or a baseball bat. These areas have been given various names such as sweet zone, sweet spot, etc. A sweet spot is a position that is identified by the batsmen at the best location of the bat with which the ball comes in contact and gives the maximum exit velocity.
  • There's also page 202 of this book which demonstrates and explains a mathematical physics equation needed to find the sweet spot; included in its commentary is This is the ideal point at which to hit a ball with a bat (sometimes called a 'sweet spot' in sporting applications — cricket, tennis, baseball, etc.)
  • Then page 365 of this book is unfortunately sandwiched between two pages not visible to me on preview mode, but from that page alone it says Considerable work has been done on the physical interpretation of the 'sweet spot' and its location on the cricket bat using the research on baseball bats as the basis. It is possible to establish such correlations as the mechanics of swinging the bat is similar for both games. The length and weight of the cricket bat and baseball bat are also similar…Based primarily on extensive research on tennis racquets and baseball bats, today it is widely accepted that there are other impact locations on the bat that are capable of producing the greatest post impact ball velocity. That page alone also cites about ten other sources inline which can be referred to.
  • In this book, Chapter 4.5 titled "Angular impulse and the centre of percussion" begins with Have you ever wondered why a cricket bat, a baseball bat or a tennis racquet has a sweet spot? This is the point on the bat where the ball seems to be hit most cleanly, without producing much vibration in the handle followed by a demonstration and explanation of the mathematical physics equations required to calculate the position of the sweet spot.
These sources show a great deal of analysis on the sweet spot concept in a manner that cohesively ties all the sports together. These are mere snippets (as in there is a lot more about sweet spots than just what is quoted) so as not to needlessly overwhelm this discussion, but please read and go the sources to see the full depth and breadth of coverage for yourself if you still have any doubts or questions. Left guide (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ whether to keep or redirect. This discussion can continue on the Talk if desired. Star Mississippi 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Alive (band)

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

Non-notable band. No coverage in RS, also by NEXIST. Promotional writeup. Circular sourcing, for example here: On June 11, 2012, it was announced on the band's Facebook page that the band has decided to record a new album., i.e. the band member(s) make "announcements" on FB then quote themselves on WP. Has already twice been deleted at Hewiki. No updates since 2013. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reverse of the usual procedure, because there would then be an orphaned album article with no connection to a band. The fact that the one album got some reliable reviews might actually enhance the band's article, but not by much. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 while it is true that the usual case is a notable band and a non-notable album, here we likely have a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The album contributes to the band's notability but not enough to fulfill any WP:BAND criteria. Broc (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions on this discussion. Doomsdayer520 is correct, we typically turn non-notable albums and songs articles as redirects to a musical group's page. I have even seen articles deleted because there was an album article but no article on the band.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need more opinions. The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album), that is also at AFD. Two or three more points of view would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album (if the album survives the AfD). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Normally I would be indifferent about an AfD for a mid-level band like this, but talking about redirecting the band's article to one of their albums, just because that album got a whopping two reviews that anyone can find, is downright absurd to put it lightly. The album reviews have some basic band history that can be used to support the band's article: [56], [57]. Also they have a reasonably robust AllMusic biography: [58]. Here's a little more news from one of the magazines that reviewed the album: [59]. That's enough for a stub article for the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are niche sources, not RS. Then again, the album has been kept under the same. AllMusic rewrites what artists send them. gidonb (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments are divided between Delete, Redirect and Keep. By the way, right now, it looks like AFD discussion on the album will close as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to kept album. There's a boatload of uncited assertions on this article, but no claim of notability. I disagree with User:doomsdayer520 there's enough upon which to base an article on the group. What we're missing is actual reliable sources directly detailing, and I'm not seeing anything approaching that standard so far on the page or in a reasonable BEFORE. There's nothing to keep here, no sources with which to describe the band. The album was a bare pass; based on sourcing, the album is sufficient coverage. BusterD (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not supposed to contribute to this discussion as a prior band member, but interesting to hear the process here. The album was notable to me, lol. 135.23.150.249 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maybe merge the album to the band article. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What about notability? gidonb (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The album should have been deleted and should still be deleted. Yet, for as long as it is kept, there is of course no problem with a redirect with prejudice against the notability of the band. This is written in response to Liz's relisting comment way back: The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album), that is also at AFD. gidonb (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as the album article has been kept, the only viable options are "redirect/merge" or "keep". Mach61 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. As in there truly isn't one, not "try again in six months". Like all else tied into the events since October 7 and related to the region as a whole, opinions are split. In this case, the bulk of them have policy behind them albeit not necessarily an accurate reading thereof (sourcing does not need to be in English). There is the potential for consensus in the future, but not via another week at AfD. Star Mississippi 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas most wanted playing cards

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

Non notable and poorly sourced material. Seems like an excuse to make a list. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there two different decks? Those don't all seem to be covering the same deck... From that coverage it appears that there is a government deck and that there is a "Christian cowboy" deck. This page appears to only cover the first so coverage of the second (for example that J-Post article) doesn't count towards the notability of the first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted out the clearly irrelevant material about an alternate deck of cards but editor Longhornsg has editwarred it back in. Closer, kindly take note. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, stop with the aspersions. It's not WP:EDITWARRING. This article is about decks of cards of Hamas leaders. Alternate versions are of course relevant, as are song covers to the original, and other variations to originals. Besides, it's one source of many. Longhornsg (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is about *a deck* not about decks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article currently has information about two distinct decks of cards featuring depictions of Hamas members. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally five references in the article that aren't directly referencing the death of someone; they're the ones that need to be evaluated when deciding WP:SIGCOV, not the 19 others, referencing that someone was killed. The Messenger source is just reporting on what was in the Ynet article, so there's only four actual sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The vast majority of the sourcing here is trivial in the extreme, and the few that do cover it more meaningfully are unimpressive with a view to establishing GNG for this topic as a subject of import for a global encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent and scope of extant sources that cover this article's subject would be helpful in bringing this closer to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sourcing issue has been adequately resolved, and it provides value as a kind of before -after picture of the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has been resolved about sourcing? Can WP:SUSTAINED be demonstrated? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing / notability is on point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with this article's notability. There is another one with a similar name,Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards that has been on Wikipedia for several years. But maybe it is worth moving this article to "Most-wanted Hamas playing cards" to keep to the same format.--Hazooyi (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is nothing, and the weak coverage shows it. Not SIGCOV, not notable. Zanahary (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctant relist. I don't see a consensus here and when it comes down to a decision, I see editors whose AFD experience I respect on both sides of this discussion. A source analysis would be helpful for whomever reviews this next. Right now, there are plenty of opinions but it comes down to whether or not sources establish notability of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't reviewed them in-depth, I am simply asserting that any real discussion about the topic's notability needs to address all of the sources available, and not only the ones in the article. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those include 3 already in the article and then 2 more Israeli source, an Arab blog established in 2023, and 2 Arabic sources in Arabic. No sight nor sound of the sort of sourcing we usually see for our articles in this topic area. The whole thing is just Israeli propaganda similar to Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards which at least had a modicum of sourcing but probably should be AfD'd as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, both about this article's non-notability and about the playing cards of Iraqi officers as well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri-An Davis

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

after doing a WP:BEFORE, i found minor mentions in some film credits and two books, but this doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Argentina–Greece relations. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Argentina, Athens

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

Article just uses 2 primary sources to confirm it exists. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Deublein

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

did a WP:BEFORE, could only find database entries and minor mentions. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film and television

  • DELETE - Non notable, and not necessarily written according to IMBD, the only source listed. He does not appear to have ever been a "star", guest or otherwise. I edited some entries under Film and television, much of which was exaggerated as to how many performances the actor did. Possibility the author Dubliner1 is the actor Dan Deublein, as this article is the only one they ever edited. — Maile (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiabao Li

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

I don't think this meets WP:N. All of the sources in the article fall into one of three categories:

  • primary (e.g. artworks on the subject's website)
  • aren't independent from the subject (e.g. there's sources from UT Austin, Endless Health, and ONX Studio, but she has a direct connection to all three of these institutions)
  • is a listing (e.g. her name is mentioned on the finalist lists for some awards, but these do not contain in-depth coverage of the subject)

A Google search doesn't reveal any sources that meet all three of these criteria, and a scan of her Google Scholar page doesn't reveal any papers that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence in maintaining the quality and integrity of Wikipedia content. Since the nomination for deletion, significant updates and improvements have been made to the page to address these issues.
1. Diverse and Independent Sources: The page now includes references from a wide array of credible, independent sources. This includes coverage in respected museums, well-regarded news outlets, and recognized conferences. These sources are not affiliated with Jiabao Li or the institutions she is connected to, providing a neutral perspective on her work and contributions.
2. Notability Beyond Academic Publications: For individuals in the fields of art and design, notability can extend beyond academic publications. Jiabao Li's contributions have been recognized through exhibitions, public talks, and awards, which are crucial indicators of her impact and recognition in her field. The updated page now features these aspects, supported by credible sources, underscoring her notability from a comprehensive perspective.
The inclusion of these updates is aimed at ensuring that Jiabao Li's Wikipedia page meets the notability criteria by providing verifiable, independent, and significant coverage. Her contributions to the fields of design, technology, and environmental advocacy are well-documented and recognized by the broader community, making her a notable figure worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Agnescooper (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)— Agnescooper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find this article worth of a Wikipedia entry as the citations appear to be almost exclusively secondary. All the citations in the article appear truthful upon Google search. coopgalvin (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)— coopgalvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Responding to claims by "HyperAccelerated" -

  • primary (e.g. artworks on the subject's website)

This is certainly not true in the current version of the page.

  • aren't independent from the subject (e.g. there's sources from UT Austin, Endless Health, and ONX Studio, but she has a direct connection to all three of these institutions)

This is not true in the current version of the page.

  • is a listing (e.g. her name is mentioned on the finalist lists for some awards, but these do not contain in-depth coverage of the subject)

Not true in the current version of the page.

What I see are several well cited sources for major exhibitions at global premier institutions for contemporary art. Clearly Jiabao Li is a notable artist and while potentially controversial or incendiary to some political viewpoints, worthy of note as a major influencer of modern artistic culture.

Zerokelvins69 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zerokelvins69 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)ZeroK[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gurhan Orhan

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

It doesn't look like notability is met. My WP:BEFORE did not yield satisfactory results. Tehonk (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers

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

Completely minor and irrelevant parties that never won a seat, got more than 100 votes, or participated in more than 1 election. Yilku1 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

People's Political Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Progressive Liberal Party (Saint Kitts and Nevis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Kitts Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United National Empowerment Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United People's Party (Saint Kitts and Nevis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Yilku1 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers, Progressive Liberal Party, United National Empowerment Party or United People's Party articles being deleted as they were very minor, but the People's Political Movement and Saint Kitts Democratic Party were clearly significant parties at the time of the elections in question. Number 57 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_22&oldid=1209561093"