Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 30: 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/Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEW}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEW}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Boureima Katkoré}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Boureima Katkoré}}

Revision as of 14:06, 30 May 2024

< May 29 May 31 >

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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking

AfDs for this article:
Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking (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 many reliable sources out there. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stnh1206 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 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 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Energy Water

Smart Energy Water (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:CORP, sourced only by press releases, and in a WP:BEFORE search all I could find was even more press releases. They've worked with some notable companies, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. No indication of notability for any of the awards they've won. Spammy tone can be fixed, but notability issue will remain, so I can't really be asked to clean this up. Wikishovel (talk) 13:36, 30 May 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) Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Boureima Katkoré

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, essentially no coverage in secondary sources. The cited secondary coverage in the article is primarily about an incident where Katkore was treated by a field medic during an international friendly match ([1]), and goes further to establish the notability of the medic than of Katkore. I was unable to find any additional coverage searching for variations of his French name as well as his Arabic name (بوريما كاتاكوري ), as well as the alt-spelling "Katakore" (which turns up some additional mere mentions in rosters, but nothing GNG-worthy). Somewhat confusingly, Arabic sources (including the prior Al-Jazeera link) appear to prefer referring to the subject as Katkore-Boureima, rather than Boureima-Katkore, and often omit his first name; searching for these permutations in Arabic and French did not turn up any significant coverage, however. There also appears to be an unrelated Algerian player named Boureima Katkore ([2]) signed, Rosguill talk 13:34, 30 May 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! 05:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Life

Abacus Life (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:NCORP - coverage seems to be routine at best with a few promotional pieces thrown in. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unambiguous promotional spam, can't find any good sources BrigadierG (talk) 11:35, 6 June 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Brzęk

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--other than publications affiliated with his team, Lechia Gdansk, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of Brzęk available, with several pages of Polish search results containing only very brief mentions in match reports. signed, Rosguill talk 13:19, 30 May 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 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà

Prince Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà (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 assertion of WP:NBIO for a living person. The article is largely a very dubious exercise in claiming titles defunct since the Middle Ages. Main 'scholarly' source is an article at the Social Science Research Network that does not appear to have been published in academic journals and thus not subject to peer review. Constantine ✍ 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Respectfully, why do you view this as dubious? There are many articles, of various descendants, of various Houses on WP. This is no different, and as a researcher of this particular area of history, Frankokratia and the Principality of Achaea, it absolutely seemed appropriate for there to be an article created, especially after seeing that a recent case study was written about the topic. As to your other points, a good portion of the paper discusses the claims of the extinct Italian Tocco family until 1933, with the death of its last claimant, less than one hundred years ago, so this is not something that hasn't been thought about since the middle ages as you said but it has been present almost until WWII. The case study that you mentioned was in fact picked up by the "Legal History eJournal," curated by a known professor at Yale University, Reva Siegel of the Law School. I would not have used this source if it appeared that a trusted expert had not laid eyes on it as I fully know and understand the rules of WP.
Thanks. Eugene de Moree (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Eugene de Moree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The article itself is about a non-notable person, whose biographical details occupy a handful of lines and are nothing extraordinary. Most of the content is about the titles, rather than their current presumed holder. This might be OK for a blog article, not an encyclopedia. On the various articles about various descendants of nobility, yes, they exist, but then the descendants are notable, or at least the titles are notable; the pretender to the throne of France is of a different order of notability than the Damalades. Wikipedia also has deleted articles for nobles who did not satisfy criteria for notability, even from royal houses, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark. The most important problem with the rest of the article is that it makes unsupported claims. Assuming the lineage is correct (which is always a big if with genealogy, especially the Zaccaria-Damalas connection, I have had quite a few battles over this over at the Damalas talk page), at one point one of his ancestors had the title 'King and Despot of Asia Minor', which was a one-off symbolic award without any real substance, as Asia Minor was lost to the Turks at the time. The article makes the casual reader think that this title had substance, through the entirely erroneous and unsupported assertion that Martino did control a sizable portion of the defined boundaries of this Kingdom, he did not control it in its entirety...reclaim the said territories, which is patently false as soon as you look upon a map and compare Chios, Phocaea, and Smyrna to the rest of Asia Minor. Furthermore, I am not aware of any Damalas-Zaccaria claim to the title of Prince of Achaea, in contrast to the well attested Tocco claim. Whether the Tocco had the right or not, they laid claim; the Damalades, who for most of the period were an obscure Chiot family, did not. The article suggests that these titles are claimed by 'Prince Constantine' by virtue of descent, but whether he knows or is interested in such a claim is uncertain; the phrasing of the article is almost teleological, but thin on evidence on that matter. It is not for Wikipedia's users to award him these titles because of Salic (or any other) law, or making judgments based on the observed dynastic succession. This is the essence of WP:NOR. If this person makes these claims and if these are recognized by independent authorities (i.e., not someone who was paid for the job), and if this claim, or any other of his actions, attract notability sufficient to satisfy our criteria, then he is to be included here. Constantine ✍ 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how being heir to the patrimony of this historic family is not noteworthy in its own right. Not to mention the close relations to the last members of the Byzantine imperial family through blood and marriage. As a historian, I would absolutely say that this is worth people being able to read about. Perhaps make some corrections, sure, but this should be out there, and this is why I created the page after finding the very valuable case study. I do think that you may have some misunderstanding on what I wrote about Martino though, because the Lordship of Chios (which I linked in the text) was more than Chios and Phocaea. So I am not sure how one could think that I was being misleading. Martino's kingly title was titular in nature, yes, but a high hereditary  honour nonetheless. Actually, the fact that it was not attached to an actual fief means that it's transmission to descendants is cleaner than that of other royal titles that were attached to territories that are now lost. It is one of the very few instances in history where the title of king has been given as a titular honour, and therefore would legally remain fully intact today. Just these few things are notable. Lastly, the case study plainly states that Constantine knows about his patrimonial inheritance. It also says the strict method of ascertaining the proven  genealogical connection. The fact that you thought otherwise leads me to believe that you did not fully read the study. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, all the information about Constantine Zaccaria Damala is taken from "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea". “The handful of lines” is because I am not in a position to know further insights about this person apart from what is already written in this particular article. Also, personal information can be found in the new publication of the Annuario, on the page discussing the history of house Zaccaria-Damalas, and was sent to me through mail. The Annuario does not approve nobility status without a rigid reflection first. Obviously, the British Royal family members have a greater degree of notability than each member of the house Zaccaria-Damala. Still, this article is about the Head of the House, not a brother, sister, cousin, or a distant relative and certainly, this is NOT the first case of a noble in WP with only a handful of information to adorn his/her page. The few insights provided (parents, wife, place, date of birth) do not mean this person doesn’t exist.
Martino indeed controlled Chios, Phocaea, and half of the city of Smyrna for some time, the titular imperial couple of the Latin Empire recognized this sovereignty. The diploma was granted in 1324 and Martino lost Chios in 1329, certainly, the Kingdom that Emperor Philip and Empress Catherine envisioned and for which they even crafted a crown and appropriate regalia was one where Chios, etc were included. This is why I linked the page Lordship of Chios to the chapter of the article. If you read the diploma -I linked it to the page references- you shall see that the imperial Latin couple of Naples are especially specific on what they offer to Martino and that this is very true and not a vague idea.
The article makes it clear that after the mid-15th century, the Zaccaria-Damalas family did not openly claim the title of the Prince of Achaea, and the title was monopolized by house Tocco (where in the article I mention that the post-1469 Zaccarias held the title?), though it concludes that with the extinction of the Tocco line in 1933, the senior descendant of house Damalas (for reasons analyzed in detail by the author) can rightfully claim the title now that is vacant for decades.
“not someone who was paid for the job”
These accusations are concerning and it is more useful to be avoided as they are potentially directed against an academic of Yale University and a researcher for whom we know nothing in order to insult them this way and are not present in the undergoing discussions to support their thesis. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The study is interesting, but it is not WP:RS as it has not undergone peer review. I have perused it, and though it states that Constantine Paul Damalas is interested and took steps to verify his descent and lineage, that's about it. The very abstract of the study is clear IMO: "This study delves into the intricate succession landscape surrounding the medieval title of Prince of Achaea...its theoretical rehabilitation in favor of the Damalas descendants of the Zaccaria Princes of Achaea", and this is reinforced later on "since the current claim that is available to Constantine Paul Damalas" (p. 98). I.e., this study is an examination of descent and possible claims under a legal perspective, and nothing more. The assignation of these titles as is done in the article is yet to be established.
Plus, as I have stated in a different discussion we had, this cannot be seriously considered a WP:RS without the actual study to examine and verify. My reference to being paid for something is exactly on this, as the study was clearly commissioned by someone, and not undertaken in the interests of scholarly research (MyHeritage is not an academic institution, but a fee-based service). Taking an uncharitable view, this is no different than all the medieval upstart monarchs who paid some scholar to 'discover' links to the ancient Greeks, Romans, or Jews. As a lot of the argument hinges on this study, color me unconvinced. But the veracity or not of the claim is indeed somewhat beside the point: the article simply does not establish notability of the subject per WP:NBASIC. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree on upstart monarchs conducting fraudulent discoveries, still Annuario della Nobiltà holds some very strict requirements on accepting new houses to be included on its pages and there's no way to grant nobility status without extensive research. As there is a scientific committee conducting independent research. The paper of Stornaiolo Silva cites Annuario and makes it clear that the aristocratic status of Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà has been approved. The Annuario would thoroughly examine her work and would not publish it if she could not provide the extensive proof that they require. The MyHeritage chart seems like a simplification of her research to help the reader have all the genealogical information in one file.
I think there is even a small degree of notability through Annuario and "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" and the little information available is not against the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia. Especially when we are dealing with members of old dynasties lost in history, usually, we have scarce information known, but that doesn't stop many editors from actually establishing a small article about them with four or five lines.
The paper states clearly that Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà is actively pursuing the princely title since 2023. Eugene de Moree (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Annuario della Nobiltà still hasn't published the newest version that is referenced in the article though, so verification remains an issue... And again, the veracity of descent is one thing, the active pursuit of the nobiliary claim another, and notability a third. The deletion request is based on notability, not of the family or the title, but of the holder. Even complete frauds like Peter Mills or Eugenio Lascorz have some wider presence in scholarly literature, which attests to their notability. Here we have no information other than this person exists, and that from a non-RS. Constantine ✍ 20:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern regarding proof of inclusion in the Annuario. For the same reason, I reached out to the author of the case study to see proof of this when writing this article. He produced this proof in the form of a PDF, which is an extract from the Annuario's database and is exactly how the pages will appear in the next edition. I received this as well as an email where the editor confirmed the successful review of all documentation and approval for publication. I can readily provide the same proof that was provided to me.
As I mentioned in several other comments, being the head/senior heir of this lineage is historically notable in itself. There are many examples on WP where this is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but a few examples would be: "Princess Vittoria of Savoy", "Prince Jaime, Duke of Noto", and "Joachim, Prince of Pontecorvo." All of these either have little biographical information, nothing truly noteworthy besides the noble lineage that they come from, or both. Furthermore, none are heads of their respective Houses either, unlike Constantine.There are many, many more on WP, and if really necessary, I will share more. I should hope that this is strong enough reasoning to conclude that notability shouldn't be an issue here, and the only way that it could be would be to pick favorites. We should be encouraging the coverage of all history, not only the mainstream and I know that you agree with that.
It would be one thing if this person had some ridiculous imaginary Order of Knighthood or was granting bogus titles, but as explicitly mentioned in the case study, he nor his family have ever done anything of the sort nor they claim to be "the last Palaiologoi alive" and I found that refreshing and worthy of recording/highlighting their respectable patrimony for others to read.
The thing is, an argument for his notability would have been more legitimate if he had "granted bogus titles", because then there would be press about his actions. The fact of the matter is he has not done anything worthy of note, especially in regard to this noble family that he is supposedly the head of. It doesn't matter if you find it "refreshing" and "worthy of recording".. it hasn't been "recorded" by legitimate independent sources. He is not notable. Virtue is not a credential for establishing notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that I will agree with you on, is that there needs to be an explicit mention that Constantine claims his hereditary inheritance. It is clear from the study that he is interested, but it doesn't explicitly state that he is claiming it. I don't think this is a reason to delete the article, but it is reason enough to reword it to reflect this current understanding.
Actually in the article one can find much more information about this case, that I did not added at the current WP article, but now that I rethink of it, I should have. These will boost the notability of this person as they include information that prove that this "Achaean case" is too singular to be ignored. Eugene de Moree (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that could establish notability of this person would be reliable, independent sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone interested in late Frankokratia, I welcomed the addition of previously unknown information on the topic. Just as with other defunct countries, if there are heirs living to this day, then it is definitely notable and this page should ex as the articles of other heirs doist. Also, I would like to add that perhaps editors responding here should take the time to read the entire case study as I have done, since all the points against this article are not accurate or true. This reis is longer than the time it took some to reply here. Alfor tome to so say that there is no notability of any kind is absurd, and likely anti-monarchist biaOtherwise, one would have to delete all pages on the topic of heirs. s. Laurelius (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Laurelius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been included in the Yale ejournal and has been curated by an academic of the university. I contacted the author of the article before establishing the page and he mailed me that this article is going to be published as a book in the near future with a greater decree of information available about the topic. He mentioned that the publisher is an active one in the academic field. By what I understood, the book will be concluded in the next months. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Things may change in the future. But right now, "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" appears to be only on SSRN, which is considered a self-published source here (it's a pre-print archive with no peer review), and as far as I can tell, no edition of Annuario della Nobiltà supporting this article's claims has actually been published yet. If that comes out, and "Achaean Disputes" gets publication in a book with reliable editorial oversight, it may be appropriate to revisit this. Also, keep in mind that "notable" is a term of art at Wikipedia; just because something is "not notable" in Wikipedia's sense doesn't mean it isn't interesting or even important, just that it does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion. Lubal (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly not self published https://www.ssrn.com/link/legal-history.html, the professor reviewed and agreed that it was worthy of posting in her eJournal at Yale. Also Annuario is going to be published this November and its content is most likely finished thus it's hard to imagine that an author whose working with Yale University would use references from the Annuario without having access to the text. Also the genealogical research of Ms Souli has been approved by the committee of Annuario as they informed me.
    I understand your concerns and I share some of them. My proposal is for the article to remain but it must be heavily edited as its current form is problematic. More personal nformation about Constantine Zaccaria Damalà should be added (taken from the "Achaean Disputes, one can find more there) while the passages discussing the titles of this person should be reduced.
    If in the next months the research of Stornaiolo Silva is not published as a book with academic editorial oversight and the publication of Annuario makes no mention of the protagonist of this case, then I will nominate it for deletion myself. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion nomination discussion is happening now, because sources do not exist. If sources are created after the deletion, then you could re-write the article. But as it stands now, this subject is not notable in any way. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with some of the previous voters. Self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, no matter where they are published. Keivan.fTalk 13:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - scion of a country that hasn't existed for hundreds of years is not the allegation of notability that a few folks think it is. Otherwise, hundreds of people would be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How many people do you know are senior agnates/legal heirs to any former sovereign state? Even if there were hundreds, compared to over eight billion people, that's rather notable. It is one thing to argue that it doesn't meet WP guidelines, sure, but let's not be ridiculous. Royal and even noble families routinely die out in the legitimate male line, and that is the rule, not the exception. When there are extant families, the only relevant person is the senior heir if we're being honest with ourselves. Sorry to be so blunt, but some of the comments need stay in reality instead of becoming emboldened by the scales of opinion here. Laurelius (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, Wikipedia's guidelines on notability are not established by who we do or don't know. If he were notable, he would have been written about. No one here is sharing personal opinions on the matter.. we are simply reminding you of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understood, this is about WP guidelines. I think the disconnect here is that WP's idea for notable is not the same as in reality/everyday life. The actual definition of notable is: "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable," and the definition of remarkable is: "worthy of attention; striking." If you were to go to a party, and someone pointed out that the individual of this discussion was there, and disclosed the facts about them, it would absolutely be remarkable and striking because it is not something "run-of-the-mill" as one commenter erroneously tried to suggest, it's very rare to come across. If he has been a private individual, you wouldn't find much on him, but it doesn't reduce the fact that his existence is infact notable. I can respect that WP can do whatever it wants with its guidelines/rules, and I respect the very successful platform that has been built, but let's at least acknowledge the glaring difference of what the dictionary/humans says notable is, and what WP says it is, even if only for the sake of helping newer users understand this and not polarize discussions. We don't have be androids about it when you're not speaking to an android at the other end of the keyboard. That is just my two cents, and I'm sure it will be met by some technical, rule based response, which will completely miss my point just like the other points made here, but that's okay. Laurelius (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Annuario has already confirmed this person as a noble and head of house Zaccaria Damalà. It is only a matter of time until it's published and I have the full reference so to use it in WP and I will! I've made contact with them before making the article as it would have been absurd to establish an article without further knowledge of the situation. Actually house Damalas Zaccaria has a confirmed connection to the rulling families of Byzantine Empire (house Kantakouzenos, Asen, Palaiologos) and of course the Principality of Achaea-Morea and its nobility status is not something debatable (also confirmed by Annuario). Eugene de Moree (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not notable. The Annuario does not establish WP:GNG. If he does not meet the GNG guidelines, he is not notable. If it is "only a matter of time", then you can wait to write the article again. As it stands now, there are no credible, independent sources that establish his notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 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) Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wun-Chang Shih

Wun-Chang Shih (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:NSKATE; bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. No international medal placements at all. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:51, 30 May 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. ✗plicit 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Austrian Open

2024 Austrian Open (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)

$5000 tournament at bwf international level which doesn't meet the notability criteria WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NBAD. The only notable ones which get enough coverage in notable websites are World Tour tournaments.

Moreover the tournament winners are already mentioned here in Austrian International page as each of those editions can't be created on their own due to notability issue.zoglophie•talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was unable to find non-primary sources. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 6 June 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! 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws

Redemption Paws (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)

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.
These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. SilverserenC 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A flawed nomination is not a reason for a procedural close once a valid Delete !vote has been voiced. Please address the sourcing to determine if this meets our guidelines. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:06, 30 May 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 Cardiff University#Schools and colleges where it's mentioned Star Mississippi 02:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff School of Engineering

Cardiff School of Engineering (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 school is particularly notable outside notability of university DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff University - Departments are almost never notable. BrigadierG (talk) 11:34, 6 June 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. This is a close one, but given the additional sources and expansion of the article, the arguments to keep the article have more weight. An alternative take would be that there is no consensus, but my read is that the additional sources identified have changed things. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Orzech

AfDs for this article:
Artur Orzech (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)

Seems to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reality show host. Fails WP:GNG. 178.164.179.49 (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reality show? He did not nor does he currently host a reality show. He is an accomplished artist and journalist with very wide recognition in Poland and pretty cult following because of his hosting of the Eurovision transmissions. I wholeheartedly disagree with RUNOFTHEMILL label. 84.188.101.102 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. A well-known Polish presenter and Eurovision Song Contest long-running commentator having commentated 26 contests. If we consider this RUNOFTHEMILL, we will need also to consider Peter Urban (presenter), José Luis Uribarri, José María Íñigo and many other well-known Eurovision Song Contest commentators' articles for deletion. Qcumber (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known" is not a valid reason for deletion. And don't do the Pokemon test. - 178.164.179.49 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, sir/madam, please, be polite. And explain me what does it mean "pokemon test". And if we need to consider this article for deletion, why don't we need to consider for deletion the articles I mentioned above then?
Thanks! Qcumber (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that the article is not expanded enough. Because of this 2021 events take the most part of the article. It's not good. The label prompts that someone will at least take the information from Polish Wiki. But I agree with 84.188.101.102 - I don't think that there is a srong reason to delete the article with RUNOFTHEMILL . Qcumber (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article are routine mill entertainment news, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. BEFORE found similar, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Could find more and better sources than on e.g. Fredrik Renander or Amun Abdullahi.Atlassian (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on existing sourcs that establish notability, not on a subject's reputation or notoriety.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick googling showed many sources: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].
As well as article collections with and about him [22], [23], etc. Atlassian (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider myself competent to evaluate their quality, but taken on face value, the Polish Wikipedia version of this page appears more thoroughly referenced. Lubal (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously passes GNG per sources on our WP page and Polish page, which also include a printed encyclopedia, more is easily findable via Google (see Atlassian examples above). The RUNOFTHEMILL label seems like an excuse to ignore the coverage and not provide an adequate deletion rationale, and describing the subject as a 'reality show host' shows that the IP (who has since made a lot of questionable edits) didn't even bother to read the page, let alone do a minimal WP: BEFORE. --Cavarrone 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First thoughts: this article in its current form is rather lopsided to focus on the "dismissal" and reads more like a news article about that occurrence rather than being a biography about Orzech. After review: other editors are correct in pointing out that the sources used here (and actually in the Polish Wiki as well) are passing mentions that he served as commentator, mainly for Eurovision. While at first I was impressed with the size of the Polish Wiki page and the idea that perhaps his bio was more developed there, it is in fact just a prose version of a list of times he'd provided commentary or hosted a program; more like a resume than a biographical overview. The provided sources do not go into any depth about the positions to establish his notability; the sources are instead about the events he was part of. Overall, I do not believe that the subject meets GNG and NBIO. Grk1011 (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per coverage which are extensive. Per sourcing which are third party and reliable. Overall I would say WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would concur with Grk1011's assessment of the article. The parts on his background and career at TVP are wholly unsourced, and background is also wholly unsourced on the Polish article. Even within the Polish article, which would be the main start for improving this article, it reads more like a CV/resume than an article, and there are large chunks which are unsourced and thus fails WP:VERIFY. WP:BLP, and specifically WP:BLPRS, means that we have to have sources for any information which is potentially challengeable, which would result in cause for the the first two paragraphs to be likely for removal. Taking that aside, we then have an article which is exclusively about the subject's issues with TVP management and the resultant removal from TVP and return following the change in government; having an article with only this means it would fail on WP:SIGCOV. In general I don't believe even with the sourcing available on the Polish Wikipedia or mentioned here that there is enough verifiable referencing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He is important enough that his departure from TVP in 2021 was covered by Polish newspaper of reknown, Gazeta Wyborcza, [24], and said article even included a (very short, yes) paragraph about his background (earlier career). Considering other sources present, I think the notability is here, sufficient if not impressive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is very popular and recognizable journalist and presenter in Poland. Besides, he is an iranologist and authored a book about Iran, as well as a musician, member of popular rock band. I have expanded the article basing on its Polish version and added some sources. Niegodzisie (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the appreciated expansion by Niegodzisie. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:54, 3 June 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 14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radix DLT

Radix DLT (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)

Run-of-the-mill non-notable crypto project. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No claim to significance in the wider technological or financial community. Lack of WP:RS, the majority of sourcing is either blogspam or press releases. Principal contributor has only edited this article, and nothing else. Likely WP:PROMO, potentially in support of a pump-and-dump effort as cursory research indicates a recent promo push. Possibly undisclosed WP:PAID. Melmann 11:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it clearly has no claim to notability. OhHaiMark (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The project has blog articles going back many years, and has had peer reviewed academic papers published, unlikely to be pump and dump with that history. 2A02:C7C:F118:D600:8CE:2581:B679:4325 (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blog articles are really useless for notability as they have no editorial oversight. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more info. Could you show us some of the peer-reviewed academic sources covering the cryptocurrency? OhHaiMark (talk) 12:36, 31 May 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 14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keadle

AfDs for this article:
Scott Keadle (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 BLP does not meet GNG for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Only elected office is hyper-local county commissioner which would not normally qualify as notable outwith exceptional circumstances.

Somewhat of a perennial candidate, but given that they generally failed to get past primaries (much less general elections) and lack the WP:SIGCOV that would be needed for a perennial candidate to be notable (c.f. Howling Laud Hope or Count Binface), I don't believe they're over the line.

Promo/Peacock in "Community and family" section implies originally written by someone associated with his campaigns. That can be fixed/rewritten, but he's not notable to start with.

A previous AfD in 2013 came to no consensus, seemingly based on currency/recency of elections. But 12 years later I don't see that any enduring notability has been demonstrated. Hemmers (talk) 10:46, 30 May 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 new comments after two relistings so I'm going to close this as No consensus. It would help if interested editors could add relevant sources to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Mlakar

Jana Mlakar (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)

With only database source listed, the article of this WP:BLP1E#one-time Olympics participant clearly fails WP:GNG. According to Sports Reference results, Mlakar was not in the top three winners of 1984 Winter Olympics. She also never received any medal record. Corresponding article on Slovene Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced stub. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yugoslavia at the Olympics per no medal, no GNG coverage, WP:NOLYMPICS BrigadierG (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are Mlakar Slovenian news hits for Jana Mlakar. The news pieces are about a museum director/cultural heritage worker. Judging from pictures she doesn't resemble Jana Mlakar Adamič, a seemingly notable ethnologist (and museum employee) who was born in 1962 as well, but on 12 January [25] [26]. I would hope that someone can shed light on who these people are, and whether there is a relation to the skier. Geschichte (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She seems to be notable (given the presentation in the podcast mentioned below) but in-depth sources are missing at the moment. The German Wikipedia contains some more information in de:Jana Mlakar and there may be offline newspaper articles that reported on her in more detail. The museum director/cultural heritage worker was born in 1955 (per Cobiss) and Jana Adamič Mlakar seems to be a completely unrelated person as she is from a different region. --TadejM my talk 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, in my honest opinion GNG should be covered with these sources. Will also take a look at some sl/sh sources. A09|(talk) 15:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:12, 13 June 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! 18:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva International Peace Research Institute

Geneva International Peace Research Institute (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 is not clear why it should be relevant as an NGO. The article is short, and there are not so many links in the Internet that help understand its relevancy Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:09, 30 May 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! 23:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist)

Matt Hunt (journalist) (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)

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The controversy section isn't terribly notable, rest of the sourcing is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find sources we'd use to build an article. Sadly as a free-lancer, there likely will not be much critical notice of their work; this assumes no awards such as a Pulitzer or an Emmy. I don't find any sort of confirmation of awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 13 June 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! 05:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana (payment service)

Dana (payment service) (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)

Promotion (e.g. ISO 27001 Certification and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Certificate...) no sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article not to promote but is it allowed if I change the information so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement? You can find information about Dana (payment service) Badak Jawa (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoroif I find your decision to give a deletion tag very odd because it should be after a few minutes or a few days after the article was created Badak Jawa (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
half a year isn't enough? BoraVoro (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jakarta Post, Jakarta Post. "The top five e-wallet apps in Indonesia". thejakartapost.com. Jakarta Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
  2. ^ Liu, Meng. "DANA Is Popular Among Generation Z In Indonesia". forrester.com. Forrester. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
  3. ^ Zahra, Valina. "Top 10 must-have fintech apps and services in Indonesia". indonesiabusinesspost.com. Indonesia Business Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 6 June 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! 05:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Medical Solutions

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

No independent reliable coverage to meet GNG /NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 6 June 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! 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Sparta Sollentuna

FC Sparta Sollentuna (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)

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. The article contains some very obscure "accomplishments" supported by primary sources, but the history of the club would not attract any significant, independent coverage as they played on the eighth and ninth tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 30 May 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allecks Godinho

Allecks Godinho (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)

Footballer with very limited career. First he played 7 minutes for Trnava, the next year he played 8 minutes. Sources I could find was a short transfer announcement that was duplicated in three outlets, as well as a Q-A interview. Therefore fails WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 30 May 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! 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early Mughal–Sikh wars

Early Mughal–Sikh wars (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 particular source is discussing any "Early Mughal-Sikh wars" thus this article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Some of the sources are outright unreliable while others are discussing particular battles for which we already have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:13, 30 May 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 Principality of Seborga. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Menegatto

Nina Menegatto (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 page is really bad, it's presented as an actual biography of a politician/monarch when the country in question doesn't actually exist. It presents the subject as holding actual positions and titles, which do not exist. Not to mention that the page uses a few primary sources from the micronation itself. Presenting a micronation roleplayer as a real head of state is misinformation at best. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

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

WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here for the record that I am in agreement with the proposed draftification. The article may not require deletion anymore. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zerotalk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zerotalk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zerotalk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zerotalk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zerotalk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zerotalk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor must be talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Simply searching "Rajput" and "marriage" in the sources cited, like so [40] [41] [42] (page 19), produces strong evidence that this subject is covered in reliable, scholarly sources, was very significant to world history, and is not some made-up POV-pushing SYNTH. In addition, the delete !votes have been particularly weak, consisting of inaccurate vague waves at policy, very poorly-reasoned arguments that do not take into account any of the evidence provided, and several accusations of policy violations which have not yet been substantiated. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I almost closed this discussion, but decided to weigh in with a comment instead. My reading is that the topic is covered pretty substantially in reliable sources and it seems like an appropriate topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am not seeing this as pushing a POV (being unfamiliar with the politics, so I may be naive), nor do I see this as being original research. In any case, the POV issues if there are any could be addressed via editing. I don't see much need to draftify the article; if there is interest in improving the article's tone or POV, I think that can be done without moving to the draft space. Malinaccier (talk) 14:57, 7 June 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. - AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based arguments would be appreciated. The fact that books written by the article subject are used in university courses is not a valid argument to Keep. We delete plenty of articles on academics who have written books used in coursework somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not able to find reliable sources in English that show his academic profile, I assume they must exist in non-English languages so would appreciate it if someone could offer them for consideration. Currently there are claims on the page but, as far as I see, not much which can be verified per WP:V. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: "Dr Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakaria - Curriculum Vitae" see here. 202.134.9.128 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, a self-published CV is not suitable for WP:V JMWt (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 see here, his book about hinduism is highly praised in Zad TV by Muhammad al-Munajjid and the presenter also telephoned the publisher and requested hum to translate the book in English. His book Hindusiat wa Tasur was highly praised by Abdullah bin Salam al-Batati in the program "Al-Khajanah" of Zad TV owned by Muhammad Al-Munajjid and wished to be translated in English giving the book highly importance as a detailed work on Hinduism from the Islamic perspective.[43] His book Ash-Shirk fil-Qadim Wal Hadith has been partially translated into Indonesian by Abu Umamah Arif Hidayatullah as "Syirik pada Zaman Dahulu dan Sekarang".[44][45] Besides, the same translator also translated some of his other works into Indonesian language.[46] - 202.134.14.139 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers

Brad Chambers (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 has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [47] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Struck TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: and @TulsaPoliticsFan: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [49]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:50, 30 May 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valmir Nafiu

AfDs for this article:
Valmir Nafiu (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 pass WP:GNG or any of the WP:SPORTS criteria. None of the other language wikis have sources that are either a)independent or b) provide significant coverage of the subject. Doing WP:BEFORE reveals only a few pieces of routine coverage. Out of the sources here: [1] and [2] go in depth, and seem to be independent. No clue about reliability.

[5],[6],[7],[9] aren't independent, due to being published by his former club.

[8] does not mention him.

[3]&[4] are just routine coverage mentioning that he played in a certain match.

[10] is a data base entry, which isn't in-depth.

This leaves us with two sources, both of which were published the last time this article was deleted.

(Disclaimer: found this page through a CCI, and I've deleted a paragraph over copyright concerns. The only source I deleted, however, also did not mention the subject.) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The German wiki has 9 sources, 7 of which are not independent. Of the other 2, one is stats and the other contains little info on him. Your sources are interviews, non independent websites and match reports which isn't sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Did you actually read those sources? They clearly do not amount to GNG coverage. 1: interview by his football club Red XN. 2: interview in Telegrafi with 1 independent sentence on him Red XN. 3: his football club Red XN. 4: part of 1 sentence in a routine transaction announcement Red XN. 5: part of 1 sentence in a routine match recap Red XN. 6: 1 sentence in a routine match recap Red XN. If you're going to accuse others of being lazy with their BEFOREs maybe don't use such obviously garbage sources as examples of what they missed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I think important context is needed here... The sources do have secondary coevrage and even then if you look at Macedonian media it tends to cover players in the form of seemingly "routine" media (see [59], [60], and [61], as opposed to e.g. Indonesian media which tends to write about players in more long-form profiles). He has been covered by various Macedonian news outlets. As a result, I feel that the fact that he has received lots of coverage by many Macedonian outlets in the form of shorter seemingly "routine" articles ([62], [63], [64] etc, has Wikipedia pages in eight languages and has played in German Bundesliga, made 100+ appearances and helped Macedonian team win three keague titles and has ongoing career is enough all put together. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are "seemingly routine" because they are routine... those are all routine transaction announcements and match reports, which we see loads of for every footballer. Which source specifically meets SPORTCRIT's requirement for IRS SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, leaving aside the first three links, because they're not about this footballer, [10], as JoelleJay caught, is a site run by the governing sports organization and can't help show notability due to lack of independence. I clicked on a few links from [12], which is when I noticed that none of those pages had an author listed. Looking at the site a bit further, their about page reveals this:

    Through "TEAM" readers receive original, exclusive, but primarily verified, reliable and accurate information. In addition to the team of professional sports journalists, the top Macedonian athletes in the role of columnists have their own space and say in "TEAM".

    Given that the articles written by athletes don't seem labeled, we're going to have a really hard time verifying that anything in this site is independent. And, given that this is a WP:BLP, I don't think articles with unclear authorship can even be used. Can they?
    And as for the links in [11]- The previews just seem routine, but I clicked on them all only to get 404 pages. I've been having lots of trouble with Internet Archive for the past day, and I don't feel like struggling with it for what seems to be, again, routine coverage.
    @GiantSnowman I trust your judgement, and you obviously saw something I'm missing. Could you give me the sources you saw that show notability? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – In fact, there seems to be a lack of independent sources that provide more in-depth coverage (the best one is from KF Shkendija's own website), but the recreation of the article does not seem to be in bad faith, SALT would be too much. Svartner (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner:, For further context, see my comment above, (GiantSnowman has also changed his vote to keep). Thanks Das osmnezz (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the best source is from the player's own club. For me it is a case of weak keep, but it is on the limit to establish WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's always routine coverage, talking about parts a player played in a game, Cristiano Ronaldo has huge amounts of what you call routine coverage. You people voting to delete never look at the cumulative amount of sources. This players has more than enough cumulative sourcing to pass WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Obvious keep. Had a long, established first-team career, and the sources shown clearly meet WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources? Because, so far, nobody's linked to any source that is independent, reliable, or gives WP:SIGCOV, so I'm not sure how they can count to the GNG. Could you please link the ones you found convincing? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Govvy's and Das osmnezz's comments above. Also, as Govvy argues immediately above, collective effect is important and real. Anwegmann (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy gave no independent or significant sources- just interviews, database entries, and routine coverage. Das osmnezz also linked to no sources- just a search result, which was annoying seeing as they specifically filtered one of their search results to a non-independent site, but none of the sources seemed to help the subject pass the GNG. I would just like a link to one source that is independent, provides significant coverage, and is reliable. If the subject "clearly" passes the GNG, this should not be hard to provide, and we shouldn't have to fall on a "collaborative effort" style argument.
    I also disagree with Govy's interpretation of WP:BASIC, which establishes that

    trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability

    but I suppose that's a point of policy for the closer to decide. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenLipstickLesbian: Firstly it would be polite to ping me when you talk about me, secondly, of the sources I posted, there are multiple independent sources. To say that of the sources I posted above are not independent is a false statement. I look at cumulative count per WP:BASIC, which has multiple published in bold! Followed by secondary sources that are reliable. Yes there are drips and drabs, but under the guise of BASIC you're allowed to hunt down all sources to build that cumulative count. I am using straight forward simple logic. The first part of BASIC is significant coverage, however that does not indicate it needs to be to one article and never has. There for you are allowed to determine sigcov over multiple articles. This is a constant battle and I really don't understand why seasoned Wikipedians constantly fall into the trap thinking that SIGCOV requires a full storied article, why understanding the BASIC rule allows it to built over multiple articles. I strongly suggest you read and re-read the first bullet point on WP:BASIC. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Closer needs to take into account that this user was created on May 11 and 2 out of 3 of his eidts came in football AFDs... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—And it has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia before or after 28 May (as of 4 June). Anwegmann (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not saying there's any bad faith from anyone involved but I see it as WP:GAMEing the system to say that coverage is just news about signings and games. As Anwegmann and Govvy had been saying, why would media even be interested in those stories if this man didn't have some sort of a following? Anyway, here's a source from Hamburg's Morgenpost documenting his whole career, which is clearly not routine coverage [65]. And before anyone cries "local media", Hamburg has a metro population of 5 million and that newspaper's website is ranked #32 among German news sites. Please also search the native name "Валмир Нафиу", there are tons of results, you can't honestly say that they count for nowt because they are covering individual events over a sequence of several years. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this source actually from Morgenpost, or HSV? It's not on Morgenpost's official website (www.mopo.de). Rather, the URL is www.hsv24.mopo.de - thus implying it's some form of collaboration between the tabloid and the Naifu's former football club. While I appreciate the serious allegations you and others have made towards my conduct in this AFD, I still find myself questioning this source's independence. I also wonder why, if this man is obviously as notable as everybody is saying, why nobody can produce even one source that is independent, reliable, or in-depth. I have seen a lot of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:OTHERLANGS, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES type-arguments, however. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, even though I didn't mention you by name: @Govvy, I tangentially mentioned you in the above comment, and you requested above that I ping you in these situations. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of Morgenpost's domain. I don't see how including the name of a football club on a website indicates that it is operated by the club, and something like that needs assertive proof rather than your gut feeling that it's non-independent, which seems to me to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even the newspaper's press releases about this website don't mention this supposed golden endorsement [66]. I imagine a lot of people buy/read that newspaper just for the football and it helps to have a specialist part of the domain. It's not serious allegations if people think that you're poo-pooing every single source until we find some 1,000-page biography or academic article on this player. I haven't argued WP:OTHERLANGS in the sense of saying foreign Wikipedias are reliable, because they aren't, but have you even searched for his name in his native language before I brought it up? Or Greek for his career in Cyprus? WP:BEFORE. Quite frankly, I'm not going to learn Macedonian to evaluate all of these sources, did you check them before [67] Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:15, 3 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic

AfDs for this article:
Lebanese Aramaic (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)

Renominating this page for deletion, as there was no input from any third party last time (closed as "no consensus").

Motivation from last time still holds:

  • Keep: As already stated in the previous nomination an article about a language is notable. The article discusses both the vernacular Aramaic and classical Syriac as the two are tightly connected and furthermore the term Syriac was used at time to refer to Aramaic. Wikipedia does not care about what you do or do not believe from your own knowledge (WP:VERIFYOR) but relies on reliable sources which are already provided in the page. Even if Iskander’s source is contestable Bawardi and Wardini both use the term “Lebanese Aramaic” which you have conveniently left out. I already stated in the previous nomination you are free to edit the page, as everyone is, but you seem to have ignored this as you did my counters to your same points in the previous nomination which makes it seem like you are nominating this based on WP:WINNING rather than anything else. Regardless, I have amended the page to help distinct between the colloquial Aramaic and classical Syriac as that seems to be where part of the confusion is coming from. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to accuse me of anything. There was no third-party opinion last time, which is what I am seeking here. To me, there is no "significant coverage" on this topic, thus no need for a separate Lebanese Aramaic article. Western Aramaic was obviously spoken in Lebanon, and Syriac is a part of the Maronite church - but a separate article, heavly based on that Iskander article and some WP:OR (and plenty information solely on Syriac)... I do not see how this is notable with one reference to "Lebanese Aramaic" in Bawardi's book and another one in a project description by Wardini. Let's hope his research will give us some more insight in time. This is not comparable with e.g. CPA, which is actually discussed in Aramaic studies. Shmayo (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was the third-party opinion of user Maclearie so that is false. Again, this is a contradiction of “the topic has no sources except for the sources which explicitly mention it but let us just deem them irrelevant.” Not sure where the accusation of me adding original research comes from as I have cited all of the information I added but I would like to see a supposed example of such. Red Phoenician (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party as in someone not highly active in this topic (i.e. Lebanon). I have not stated anything about you, this is not about you, but the article. Why would "Syriac alphabet" be listed under writing system? For example. Shmayo (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it is seen as bad if a user is more knowledgeable about said topic but you are right I made an error with the writing system and have corrected it. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:04, 6 June 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. I did not see much sourced material to merge, but I am happy to provide a copy of the deleted material if anybody (Gjs238) is interested in using it. Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Syrians

Italian Syrians (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 isn’t really a topic here. Specifically there is nothing here to suggest that there is a current or recent community of Syrians of Italian heritage. The article discusses Romans of Syrian origins (off topic), then the arrival of Livorno Jews (should be merged into History of the Jews in Syria, and the rest is anecdote and a section copy-pasted from Italy–Syria relations to fill out the article and make it look like an actual topic. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed a similar page, which is Italians in Lebanon, the name is different yes, but the page literally doesn’t define anything. Most sources aren’t accessible anymore and the source I can access is the Vinivest 2011? I know this isn’t the time to compare. But, what should the page by about if not Romans of Syrian descent and the history of both countries and the arrivals of the Italian Jews to Syria? I see no reason for all this, and suggest removing it. 2001:8F8:1473:5EF2:848C:A013:291F:7463 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge arrival of Livorno Jews into History of the Jews in Syria then Delete as per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 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. Similar to the prior discussion in 2012. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

AfDs for this article:
List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (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)

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is well-sourced and (IMO) an important enough topic to keep. This isn't a policy rationale, but we built encyclopedias to be useful and I enjoyed reading it, and was sad to see it up for deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the previous AFD discussion; a renaming of the article (and) a clear definition of scope would still be helpful. But these "ceremonial unofficial peace treaties" do seem to be discussed enough to be in a list article. Walsh90210 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonably well sourced article that asserts its claim to notability even if the topic is a bit silly. This may be a situation where we could delete the article by invoking the rules disfavoring lists, but we shouldn't do it as the article is, as @The Quirky Kitty points out, enjoyable to read and as @Walsh90210 says the category gets enough discussion as a category to satisfy WP:NLIST.
    The deletion rationale is hard to discern from the nomination. However, (a) the objection that the Donald book has trivia in its title doesn't make it a non-reliable source, and (b) the idea that wars are largely undeclared today is a non sequitur and perhaps strengthens the case since it becomes more of a closed-membership list of declarations of war without a corresponding cessation.
    The article suffers from lack of hard inclusion criteria. I'm not convinced that the great Berwick-upon-Tweed vs. Russia war or even Carthage v Rome constitutes an extension of war rather than possible grounds to claim the war was extended, but that could be sorted out later. Oblivy (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Raees Khan

Sana Raees Khan (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)

Close to 20 sources are routine coverage from the Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 17 show which is typical for all contestants. She was eliminated on Day 55 and did not play a significant role WP:BLP1E. The remaining sources are passing mentions from the cases she was handling. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software

Comparison of photo stitching software (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)

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there are suitable sources for this, but they simply haven't been applied properly in the article. Any comparison made by an editor is basically not valid; the correct approach is to summarize the comparisons made by the reliable sources, and to explain the criteria used by those sources. Tables (with columns each cited to one of the sources) would likely be the best way to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would be effectively WP:TNTing, and thus argue the current content here should be deleted, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: My concern here is that this type of article is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. One, detailed listings of technical capabilities of different software packages are best suited for PC Magazine or similar publications. Two, it focuses on one aspect of photo editing - image stitching. Then we would have detailed articles on "Comparison of color-correction software", "Comparison of photo restoration software", "Comparison of image animation software", etc.
    Given that any software platform is constantly being revised this would also become a high-maintenance article. Imagine, if in 2001, if we had an article titled "Comparison of dial-up internet services". What relevance would detailed comparison charts of CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online have for today? Blue Riband► 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somebody obviously did a lot of work compiling all this data but I'm seeing primary sources: product home pages, product descriptions, tutorials, and product descriptions. WiIkipedia is not a direcory nor is it a guidebook. So for those three reasons my vote is Delete.Blue Riband► 15:41, 14 June 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 Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th percentile speed

85th percentile speed (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 do not think this concept merits its own article, and believe it is adequately covered at Speed limit#Maximum speed limits, which actually goes more into depth than this standalone article (which is nothing more than a dictionary definition). This article should be redirected to that section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 85th percentile speed is a policy decision that was perhaps in the past considered a minor component of Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. However it is now being covered by reliable sources as a large component of Transportation safety in the United States, with criticism directed solely at the 85th percentile rule (as opposed to high speed limits in general) and laws being written to eliminate the rule (but not high speed limits). The rule has significant coverage and meets GNG.
Subject deserves its own article to track the development of 85th percentile rule usage and decline, as covered by reliable sources. Just like Parking mandates is a different article from Parking.
PK-WIKI (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a civil engineer, I agree it needs its own article. 71.115.83.120 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a civil engineer, I disagree. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess article changes. It's also become more complicated now that there are two Merge target article suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't going to get any bigger than it is now, merging would be appropriate. If we're going to start adding maps that track where in the world this rule is used, and follow along with reform efforts, a standalone article is appropriate. I don't mind merging and then re-splitting later if the section in question gets too long.
I'll also note that a third article covers the same topic, V85 speed. That should be merged into this article if kept, or its merge target if not. -- Beland (talk) 00:42, 1 June 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. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick

Aamna Malick (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 actress does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR as I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows NOR does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[95], [96] Otbest (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 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! 05:20, 30 May 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. Closing a keep in light of the additional sources and the comments on NPROF by others. Thanks for the assistance getting this sorted! (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlese Durr

Marlese Durr (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:GNG and WP:NPROF. Limited coverage in reliable sources, other than the college's own publications. Creator has self-moved from Draft space, so would support draftifying (if that is a word), to allow creator to continue work. Mdann52 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 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! 06:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Plummer (musician)

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

Article about a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only properly verifiable claim of notability here is that he existed -- it asserts that he had hit singles, but fails to provide any verification of where they were "hits" (spoiler alert, not in RPM). And for "referencing", it just contextlessly bulletpoints a list of mostly primary source websites that aren't support for notability, without footnoting anything in the article body to any of them.
On a WP:BEFORE search, further, I didn't find enough coverage to salvage this -- apart from one concert review in The Globe and Mail on the occasion of him playing the El Mocambo in 1980, I otherwise only get local coverage in Saskatoon, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any sense, and tangential hits for other unrelated Brian Plummers (such as Bill Pullman's character in The Equalizer).
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than he has. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 30 May 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! 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adventist schools in the Philippines

List of Adventist schools in the Philippines (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)

Contested prod. Prod reason states "This list is made up of mostly schools that are not notable and also there are no references it has been like this from day one that it was created". As I am conducting a procedural AfD, I am neutral on the matter. --Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Adventist universities in the Philippines. As far as sourcing goes, I wouldn't know what is available in reliability, but I figured reducing the list to be just the colleges and universities would be more suitable to WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the majority of Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Philippines are not notable and never will be. And we do not need a separate list for Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the Philippines, that is why we have List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. Catfurball (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before a rename is considered, you have to put forth a good, policy-based argument on why this article should be Kept. A rename can be discussed after an AFD if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 30 May 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. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenized Middle East

Hellenized Middle East (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)

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [97]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH. Aearthrise (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.
It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.
    As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon, because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime. Aearthrise (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the "Fork" information borrowed from the Partition of Babylon page, which pertained to the first rulers of the regions, and now the Hellenistic regions list section only includes the region names and important cultural tidbits from those regions. Aearthrise (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
    • Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
    • The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
    • The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
      Further, you make an argument about "eurocentricity", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas. Aversion to the word "Middle East" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.
      You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.
      For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response. Aearthrise (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here. Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done). It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate. It's bizarre synth. Furius (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly... Furius (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread. Aearthrise (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this once to get editors' assessment of article changes. But if there are editors who are opposed to Deletion, please suggest a simple alternative outcome that a closer can carry out. AFD discussions are not resolved by complicated rewriting scenarios. The options are limited with AFD closures and they are decided by consensus so if you are arguing for something complicated, you need to win over your fellow editors to your point-of-view which usually requires simplification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly. I am thus also for delete; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace.Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three "red flags" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism. Why is the map a red flag? It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.
    • For your other two "flags", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with "3rd" century BC, and writing the word "state of Judea" instead of "province of Judea". I implore you to give a real example of "factual inaccuracies" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.
    • You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism. Aearthrise (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate "the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC". These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter. The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream. Furius (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map:
      • One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of "cultural syncretism". I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time:
      Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34:
      The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt. But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.
      Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221:
      A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece. According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.
      And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416:
      According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism. It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity. This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.
      • Your second point, "The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism. There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty.
      Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46:
      Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya. After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire. During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura. Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara. Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.
      Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36:
      A "marital alliance" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC... This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world. There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage. This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.
    Aearthrise (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The leap you make from "allies and peers in the dharma" to cultural syncretism is WP:SYNTH. None of your cited sources link the two things. O'Grady does talk about Indo-Greek syncretism, but she's talking about the Kushans. The caption does not mention what the map was actually drawn to depict at all. On your second point, depicting all these places in a single colour, together, without any borders presents them as a united region. Furius (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your repeated claim of "synth" is totally unfounded, not only from earlier comments, but this one too. It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other. That is the literal definition of "syncretism", and to deny so is to play a game of ignorance. Beyond that, to say O'Grady is referring to the Kushans is a total misreading of the quote; she mentions the Kushans only as an example of the presence of the aforementioned syncretism in the great statues of Gautama Buddha they erected.
    Furthermore, you say the map's caption does not mention what the map was drawn to depict; So what? You act like repurposing content for use in another topic is something wrong. Regardless of its origins, it's a clean map that helps illustrate the idea of the culturally allied region, which is the point of Ashoka's declaration of who he considers Dharmic peers.
    You say "On your second point". No, this was your second point Furius, and I responded to it by showing that your previous claim about the nature of the map was incorrect and your own invention: neither the map nor the caption claimed anything you said.
    Now, because you don't want to admit your error, you're changing the argument to that because the map represents the three named regions as one unit, it makes the map wrong. If I showed a map of World War II depicting the European allies as one unit (being the cleanest map found for use) to illustrate the early British contribution to the war, and wrote "map of Britain, France, and Poland in alliance, 1939" would you also say it is wrong and "Synth" because it includes a single color, borderless map of the allied countries? I wouldn't.
    As a closing comment: just today, I have encountered another map that has colors and borders. I've changed the map; so now, you don't even have this point to dispute. All of your points, the ones that led you to make this article deletion request, have been defeated. Aearthrise (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, good that you've changed the map. You say "It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other." That's true.* That is why we have articles on Greco-Buddhism and Indo-Greek art (and Buddhist influences on Christianity on the limits of that syncretism). It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period. It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does). It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another) Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reaching for straws and now making arguments from ignorance. You repeat the same silly phrasing "it remains" three times:
    "It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period."
    You are saying that because the Hellenistic period article exists, we should delete this article. Following your logic, we should also delete "Roman Africans" because the article shares points with Africa (Roman province) and Romanization (cultural). That's stupid.
    "It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does)."
    You are saying this article should be deleted because it covers the specific Hellenistic Middle East area rather than including Europe or the Mediterranean. That's also stupid.
    "It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another)."
    You have not proven this point at all, and are just claiming it without providing any evidence. Clearly from the work on this article, this region is definable and has certain traits: it's an area of syncretism between Greek and Middle Eastern cultures. The area changed over time, in traits and even religion, and this article reflects that.
    If you want to disprove it, show what citations you're referring to that aren't consistent with the definition. Aearthrise (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    * It's moot, since the map has been changed, but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole, which is what a map captioned "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record). Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's moot, then why are you arguing? Are you full of hot air and want to let it out?
    "...but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole,Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record)"
    This is another stupid comment, and not based in reality. There is nowhere in the phrasing "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" that says Indo-Greek culture was a characteristic of the Middle East as a whole. All it says, is that these regions are in syncretism, i.e. they influence each other. You're extrapolation that the caption implies everywhere in the Middle East had Indo-Greek culture is incorrect, and just another one of your misreadings. Aearthrise (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a lot of these delete comments come from people *BEFORE* this page received so much content, namely Mccapra, RangersRus, and NebY; I was only notified 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request. Furius originally claimed that Hellenized Middle East is a "made-up term not used in scholarship", although his search clearly showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common "Hellenistic Middle East", with a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period article, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you read WP:BLUDGEON. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is "bludgeoning" you? Aearthrise (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON.
Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR
Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture". WP:OR
Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS. "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims of "WP:OR" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis.
You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific.
This is the section using the sources you claim are "not reliable": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa.[12] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion. Hellenists formed this diverse world culture.[13][14]
Further you claim that "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and "travel guides" are WP:RS, but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.
It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it. Aearthrise (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under current name (or possibly another). The conquest of Alexander the Great led to a significant Hellenic influence on the Middle East. This is worthy of an article on the spread of Greek culture in the Middle East. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 June 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 Giovanni Pellegrino. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile

La guerra civile (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 is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 6 June 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 R. Barri Flowers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of True Crime

Masters of True Crime (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 actual reviews, has been tagged for notability since 2016 (it was accidentally placed on the talk page until yesterday, which I fixed). The one "review" contains no analytical content and is a straightforward non interpretive summary of the book (and is also an unarchived dead link). There's another similar summary in Reference & Research Book News. Oct2012, Vol. 27 Issue 5, p106-109, which says basically nothing about the book other than what it is about and that it is exists. Other than that, nothing. There's the Portland review in external links but that website has a note about "sponsored" reviews that makes me unsure of its independence. I don't think either of these sources is enough to build an article on. Redirect to author R. Barri Flowers? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a Midwest Book Review review but that publication has, since 2011, also accepted paid reviews, so that's not useful here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 30 May 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! 02:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vian van der Watt

Vian van der Watt (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 30 May 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! 02:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Stemmet

Pieter Stemmet (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:07, 30 May 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! 02:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Evans

Hayden Evans (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 seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC as well as WP:SIGCOV—he is a college soccer player who signed but never played in the league for a fourth-tier English team for one year. All coverage is local and/or match reports. Anwegmann (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yingling

Michael Yingling (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 general notability; stub article is about an American voice actor whose only credit is for having been the soundalike of a Disney character for one TV show (for which he was credited as merely an "additional voice") and an interactive theme park exhibit. Article only has one citation, which only relates to the aforementioned exhibit winning an award and has nothing to do with the article's subject. Furthermore, the article has a COI issue as it appears to have been created the subject himself years ago. –WPA (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

938749233

938749233 (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, fails WP:NNUMBER with zero interesting mathematical properties. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJournalish

TheJournalish (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "this journal is endorsed and ranked by the Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (as already cited). Why would that not demonstrate notability?" This apparently refers to current ref. 3, but that database (SINTA) does not appear to be very selective and therefore fails both NJournals and GNG. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indonesia publishes dozens of academic journals,[98] and for some reason the first one documented on Wikipedia gets PROD and AFD within days. Why is that? I can't see why the endorsement of the journal by the government would not establish notability. (See [99], the Director-General of Strengthening Research and Development, Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, Decree Number 105/M/KPT/2022.) The journal has been published for less than four years, but has more than 300 incoming citations according to Google Scholar.[100] Does this not clearly meet C2 of WP:JOURNALCRIT? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but 300 citations is rather pathetic, even for a new journal. Also, it appears that every journal published in Indonesia gets into Sinta, so that is not really a ringing endorsement. C2 is most certainly not met. As for why this got PRODded and then taken to AfD: I patrol all new articles on academic journals and if they appear not to be notable, I propose them for deletion. Nothing nefarious here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JOURNALCRIT doesn't give a quantitative guideline, just that subjective one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because different fields have different citation densities. But even n a low-citation density field is 300 citations after 4 years not very impressive and certainly not enough for C2.
  • Delete SINTA is not embraced by the government, it's just classification/accrediation system for Indonesian journals. Being indexed by SINTA is basically just meant "this journal exist" the same way school accrediation exist Nyanardsan (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I had to close this based on the discussion so far, it would be to delete. However, more discussion genuinely would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 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 Erasmus Student Network. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia

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

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 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. There's no support here for draftification. But if you make a request at WP:REFUND they might be willing to restore this article to Draft space. Know that it would need to meet approval by an AFC reviewer, if put directly in main space, it would be subject to CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet (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)

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.[15]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them[16]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bigg Boss 17: Sana Raees Khan On Equation With Vicky Jain - "If He Would Have Come Alone..."
  2. ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan lands in trouble for participating in Salman Khan's 'Bigg Boss 17'".
  3. ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan gets involved in another controversy, Faizan Ansari calls her 'FRAUD' and 'CRIMINAL'".
  4. ^ "Bigg Boss 17 Under Fire: Bombay HC Lawyer Complains To Bar Council Over Advocate Sana Raees Khan's Participation In Show".
  5. ^ "Sana Raees Khan's Legal brilliance prevails, secures win".
  6. ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan talks about how we can tackle issue of body shaming – 'Education and awareness'".
  7. ^ "Supreme court lawyer Sana Raees Khan proves her mettle once again, wins case representing builder Indrapal Patil in the infamous Bhiwandi building collapse case".
  8. ^ "Bigg Boss 17: Meet Sana Raees Khan, Lawyer Of Sheena Bora And Aryan Khan Drug Cases".
  9. ^ "Advocate Sana Raees Khan becomes contestant in Hindi reality show 'Bigg Boss'".
  10. ^ "Bigg Boss 17 fame Sana Raees Khan bags web series titled The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth".
  11. ^ "BB 17's Sana Raees Khan Defends Indrani Mukerjea In Buried Truth Docu-Series; Shares Promo".
  12. ^ Ethel E. Ewing (1961). Our Widening World: A History of the World's Peoples. Rand McNally. p. 59.
  13. ^ William Oscar Emil Oesterley (1914). The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents. Revell. p. 12.
  14. ^ James Talboys Wheeler (1853). An Analysis and Summary of New Testament History: Including the Four Gospels Harmonized ... the Acts ... an Analysis of the Epistles and Book of Revelation ... the Critical History, Geography, Etc., with Copious Notes, Historical, Geographical and Antiquarian. Arthur Hall, Virtue, and Company. p. 28.
  15. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  16. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 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. Sorry but I don't see any consensus here for any particular outcome and it's not the closer's role to impose what I think should be done with this article. I can always be renominated at a future date if the article is not improved. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Álvarez (footballer)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Has only two datbase entry / stats sources. Main statement is that he was on the team for a South American championship but didn't play. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: From the DICCIONARIO BIOGRAFICO DEL FUTBOL BOLIVIANO (1930-2000):

"Nombre completo: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Apodo: La “Araña negra”. Nacimiento: Cochabamba, 6 de julio de 1933. Posición: Guardameta, No 1. Padres: ..... Esposa: ..... Hijos: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Estudios: Primaria Escuela Carrillo, Secundaria Colegio Carrillo de Cochabamba. Otros Estudios: INSEF. Profesor de Educación Física. Cursos de Dirección Técnica. Clubes: En el Club 31 de Octubre (1963), de La Paz. Participación en la selección: Es Campeón Sudamericano de 1963. Jugó por la selección boliviana dos partidos oficiales (1963-1965) y fue batido en tres oportunidades. Es Campeón Sudamericano Invicto 1963. No tuvo participación oficial en dicho campeonato figurando en la banca. Dirección Técnica: Fue Preparador Físico en The 16 Strongest (1990). Otros Datos: Practicó el Atletismo, el Básquetbol, el Voleibol y el Fútbol. Distinciones: El gobierno mediante la repartición respectiva condecoró con la Medalla al Mérito Deportivo en el Grado de Caballero del Deporte, al cumplirse los 40 años de la conquista del XXI Campeonato Sudamericano. Además de ser acreedor a la pensión vitalicia de 4 sueldos mínimos mensuales."

There is also a bit of coverage here, which although not published in a reliable source, is definitely more evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full name: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Nickname: The “Black Spider”. Birth: Cochabamba, July 6, 1933. Position: Goalkeeper, No 1. Parents: ..... Wife: ..... Children: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Studies: Primary School Carrillo, Secondary School Carrillo de Cochabamba. Other Studies: INSEF. Physical Education Teacher. Technical Management Courses. Clubs: At the 31 de Octubre Club (1963), in La Paz. Participation in the national team: He is the 1963 South American Champion. He played for the Bolivian team in two official matches (1963-1965) and was beaten three times. He is the 1963 Undefeated South American Champion. He had no official participation in said championship, appearing on the bench. Technical Direction: He was a Physical Trainer on The 16 Strongest (1990). Other Information: He played Athletics, Basketball, Volleyball and Soccer. Distinctions: The government, through the respective distribution, awarded the Medal of Sports Merit in the Degree of Knight of Sports, on the 40th anniversary of the conquest of the XXI South American Championship. In addition to being a creditor of the lifetime pension of 4 minimum monthly salaries

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:13, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 06:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete—One unsourced encyclopedia entry means very little. In my view, this does not come close to sustained and significant coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I actually think the encyclopedia entry does show prominence, especially as it mentions that he was given what seems to be a prominent sports medal by the government and that the Bolivian government granted him a lifetime pension for his sporting career. The blog post, while a blog, should also be considered here as it mentions he was "one of the glories" (of his club?). Considering that no Bolivian sources from the time have been searched, I'd lean towards keeping, considering that it is highly likely someone of such prominence would receive SIGCOV and we already arguably have SIGCOV in the encyclopedia entry for WP:SPORTCRIT. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You make good points. I think a "no consensus" is probably the best outcome here, as this article needs a deeper dive. Anwegmann (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite backups for the encyclopedia. I understand what you mean but for the articles state currently, there is no SIGCOV. I also understand that you argue of possible existing sources, can you help digging? I can't give much weight of the encyclopedia. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Backups for the encyclopedia? What do you mean? Why is an encyclopedia discussing the most important Bolivian footballers not to be given any weight, especially when it says the government thought him to be such an important player that they granted him a lifetime pension? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I disagree with the no consensus outcome. How a whole discussion should be on an encyclopedia that didn't give much per WP:SIGCOV. The fact proven is that the footballer isn't notable to the measure of being entered as an article. There are much sources needed to prove all claims in the article as well as being direct of how sources are analyzed. This may meet GNG but for the fact that we can't say a little written about him is enough for citing sources. Its not even a biographical book. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:12, 31 May 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhool (2019 TV series)

Bhool (2019 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:21, 30 May 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 Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. in case there is information in this article that is not in the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of WP:LASTING - unfortunately a lot of violent crime happens in South Africa, not every attack is noteworthy. BrigadierG (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Mwambulukutu was a Member of Parliament from 1985-2000 then why was the article binned in the first place. That would make him notable. Even if the article was a mess it could still be improved. Uhooep (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored his bio. He is clearly a notable politician having been an MP in the Tanzanian Parliament. Perhaps any non-duplicated prose from this afd can be transcribed there where appropriate. Uhooep (talk) 14:26, 30 May 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) 13:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

AfDs for this article:
Yuri Lushchai (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)

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.
I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is his biography in the source listed.
There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 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! 01:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arenza Thigpen Jr.

AfDs for this article:
Arenza Thigpen Jr. (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 page was originally deleted in 2022, and despite many sources, none appear to provide WP:SIGCOV. If they mention him, most sources quote Thigpen briefly or he appears in a photo. Several sources are primary. As for the "Voice of San Diego" source that purports to describe him as the "Michael Jordan of signature gatherers," it's (1) a WP:INTERVIEW and thus a primary source, and (2) the quote is actually Thigpen describing himself (“There’s an inner circle of the Michael Jordan(s) of signature-gatherers. I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but I am one of them."). Bottom line: sources don't support WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 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! 01:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Goodman

Stuart Goodman (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)

Essentially a resume in prose form. He's held some sub-cabinet state government posts and been the Arizona lobbyist for some companies. No notable accomplishments in those positions are listed. List of military service, education, job history. The references are all directory type listings confirming he held those positions but nothing more, except one ~100 word prose article saying his firm was hired to represent Apple. This wouldn't seem to meet the "significant coverage" standard of WP:GNG.

Article was created 10 years ago by an account that never did anything else, and hasn't gotten any content edits or inbound links in a decade. Those are not criteria for deletion, of course, but they do suggest that there's just nothing to add to take this beyond prose resume form into encyclopedia article. Which is what is suggested by the apparent lack of sources with non-routine coverage which could be cited. Here2rewrite (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just directories/lists as references. Three of them don't even work anymore. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:18, 30 May 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! 01:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wallis-Brown

Michael Wallis-Brown (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)

Biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I reviewed all sources in this WP:REFBOMB and found no WP:SIGCOV in any of them or in BEFORE search; all coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 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! 01:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Sport

Lincoln Sport (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)

Seems to potentially be an accidental hoax? There doesn't seem to be a "Lincoln Sport" vehicle but rather a possible confusion with the Lincoln L series through any of the following:

I've looked at newspaper sources from around the time and what seems to be the probable case from what I have gathered is that the "Lincoln Sport" is not an actual car model, but rather the case is that certain Lincoln models at the time were just referred to as "sport models", such as their phaetons, sedans, or even roadsters.

Here are some additional newspaper clippings: "Lincoln Sport Sedan", "Lincoln Sport Touring", "Lincoln four-passenger sport model", "Lincoln sport roadster", "Lincoln sport model", "Lincoln sport model sedan", "Lincoln sport model cars" B3251 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the references use "sport" as an adjective, as indicated by the fact that it is not capitalized in the body of text. The only one I see that even hints at this being a model name is this advert; it may be that one of the Judkins bodystyles was indeed called a Sport Sedan, but that also doesn't make it a model name. None of the links discovered by B3251 could be considered to meet WP:N or WP:RS.
Furthermore, no one has contributed any actual content to this article since it was created in 2006, because there was no such car. The only change aside from formatting changes was when an IP changed 1930s to 1920s back in 2009.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:33, 30 May 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.

Keep as mentioned above.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Koumbios

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

The subject is not notable. There are few (if any) reliable secondary sources; the single source used is apparently from 2006 and only available through archive.is. LoganP25 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

I see that many reliable Greek media have posted about him: 1)https://www.athensvoice.gr/city-guide/music/492901/mihalis-koympios/ 2) https://www.naftemporiki.gr/culture/1405577/stagones-o-synthetis-michalis-koympios-sto-megaro-moysikis-athinon/ 3) https://www.athensvoice.gr/city-guide/music/350565/mihalis-koympios-apanthisma-sto-idryma-mihalis-kakogiannis/ 4) https://toprotoselido.gr/i-fm-records-paroysiazei-ti-nea-tis-kykloforia-quot-magical-rebetiko-quot/ 5) https://www.newsbreak.gr/politismos/434321/michalis-koympios-paroysiazei-stagones-megaro-moysikis-athinon-2/ 6) https://www.naftemporiki.gr/culture/371889/michalis-koubios-ta-provlimata-mas-einai-gigantia-kai-epeigonta/ 7) https://www.in.gr/2016/04/26/life/music/o-mixalis-koympios-se-ena-theama-poikilwn-metamorfwsewn/ 8) https://www.ethnos.gr/music/article/184189/miltospasxalidhstoneosingletoystonoyranometoysmixalhkoympiokaithrodef 9) https://www.tovima.gr/2017/11/24/culture/mixalis-koympios-paroysiazei-to-almpoym-tsikari-m-ston-stayro-toy-notoy/ With that being said, the article needs to be improved though, in order to include that material. (Note: I am a newcomer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.) ArchidamusIII (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Analysis of ArchidamusIII's sources:
  1. Ad or listing for a performance, doesn't qualify for the GNG (not SIGCOV, independent)
  2. Ditto
  3. Similar, but might have significant coverage
  4. Significant coverage, but I'm not sure if this is a paid promotional piece.
  5. Clearly promotional concert advertising
  6. Interview (not independent), probably also promotional
  7. Another concert listing
  8. A review! – this might count towards the GNG, but it doesn't actually say much about Koumbios, so it probably isn't sigcov
  9. Yet another concert listing

I'm sorry, ArchidamusIII, but I don't think any of these sources show that the subject is notable. If you can find others that show significant coverage, I am willing to change my !vote, but based on these and what's in the article I am in favor of deletion. Toadspike [Talk] 07:58, 13 June 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) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I've tried finding album reviews for this individual, none in RS. Some concert listings found, but none of the sources above seem helpful. I don't see notability with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 13 June 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. After extended time for discussion, there remains a clear absence of consensus to delete. BD2412 T 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Campbell

Georgie Campbell (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:EVENTCRIT; subject is notable only for passing away. As this is a recent death, WP:BLP1E should probably apply here. See also WP:PSEUDO. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a WP:BLP1E with little chance of WP:LASTING BrigadierG (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that as a top level 5* rider and on Team GB for FEI Nations Cup on multiple occasions she was already WP:NSPORT relevant, and lack of previous article probably more reflective of the overall poor coverage of equestrian sport on WP. Suggest that there should be enough for an article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are achievement standards set out for equestrian sports at WP:NEQUESTRIAN - generally, a medal is required to be notable, not just participation. BrigadierG (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from this AfD, they were only ever guidelines but it was my understanding that WP:NSPORT, within which WP:NEQUESTRIAN falls, had been abandoned in favour of general WP:GNG notability, in-part so as to avoid the proliferation of single sourced historic competitors in favour of properly sourced, judged-on-their-own-merits, robust articles. A process which has clear merits, and without inbuilt asymmetry of certain sports having literally thousands of active competitors with WP:BLP articles and other sports granted three medalists at a time. If you permit a further example of the difficulties of the guidelines and how they could be perceived as a barrier to the collation of information; WP:RU/N had the criteria of only the semifinalists from the Women's World Cup, a tournament which takes place once every four years. However, in the pandemic the tournament was postponed for 18 months so a strict interpretation of the guidelines (which I saw being argued) would have no new 15-a-side female rugby union players permissible for over five and a half years. A hindrance to WP as an up-to-date information source, which an online encyclopaedia should have the capacity to excel at. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get an evaluation of additions to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 6 June 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! 01:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KreekCraft

KreekCraft (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 streamer is not notable and this article has major BLP issues. I could not find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are mostly his own videos, as well as sites like this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 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 14:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Paasch

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

WP:PROMO article creator wordlessly moved back from draftspace with no substantial coverage BrigadierG (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 30 May 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) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddrick Jackson

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

WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS - I can't see that there's likely to be unusual or lasting coverage regarding this murderer. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of serial killers on Wikipedia had no lasting coverage on news. Startrain844 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate any other articles that don't meet guidelines here. Again, they are serial killers as the media addresses them as such; this individual hasn't been called that in media. He's just another criminal, CRIME notability applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Murdered four people on different days over two years. Plenty of coverage. Meets WP:GNG. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Yes, how dare we "shame and degrade" a convicted multiple murderer by calling him a serial killer (which is much, much worse than being a multiple murderer, apparently)! Poor little chap! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there is clearly significant coverage, and I see no reason to ignore the GNG. Sourcing across three years assuages concerns about NOTNEWS for me. (I also think the designation of "serial killer" is acceptable per WP:BLUESKY. He meets the scholarly definition of a serial killer, so he is a serial killer.) Toadspike [Talk] 07:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Serial murder". Britannica. Retrieved 2024-04-22.
  2. ^ an offender can be anyone.
    • Holmes & Holmes 1998, Serial murder is the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period between the murders The baseline number of three victims appears to be most common among those who are the academic authorities in the field. The time frame also appears to be an agreed-upon component of the definition.
    • Petherick 2005, p. 190 Three killings seem to be required in the most popular definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive.
    • Flowers 2012, p. 195 in general, most experts on serial murder require that a minimum of three murders be committed at different times and usually different places for a person to qualify as a serial killer.
    • Schechter 2012, p. 73 Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_30&oldid=1226415257"