Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 03	June 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pattison

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

Found this promotional climbing BLP whose refs were either all blogs (youtube and personal) or defunct trekking companies. Zero SIGCOV in either mainstream UK RS or in the main climbing media (per WP:NCLIMBER). The text is pretty promotional and mostly done by an IP who developed the BLP and then left (probably the subject). Can't see this lasting long-term in Wikipedia; he has definitely no notability as a "mountaineer" for WP Climbing. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Quick research reveals nothing of importance. Fails WP:BLP. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCLIMBER and WP:BLP. A quick google search shows the subject isn’t notable. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newspaper articles appear to be enough for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first source on the article is non-verifiable and looks like it may be an short interview for a newspaper, the second source barely mentions the subject by name, and the third mentions he climbed Matterhorn, is climbing Eiger, is a market researcher, and has climbed the tallest mountain on each continent. The Wiki article says he writes for the same local Newcastle newspaper, The Journal, that two of the sources are from. I can hardly find more about him. Nothing is in-depth and the WP:PROMOTION editing history on the article is significant. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Activities of daily living. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Activities of daily living assistance

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

This is written like a how-to guide. I don't believe there is any encyclopedic content worth saving. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Activities of daily living. The content needs some re-writing to remove the HOWTO tone, but it covers topics which should be in Activities of daily living yet aren't. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect but please don't delete. A lot of work went into this. It needs help, yes, (read carefully the last sentence in the Mobility section for example), but much of the text is cited to a nursing textbook that would be inaccessible to most editors, and the content would be lost if this page is deleted. —Soap— 21:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Young (Vanuatuan footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. Even if NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, only two verified appearances would not be enough to keep the article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 19:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Hinge

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility buses in London

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

For the most part, a WP:CFORK with and quick resurrection of recently redirected article London Buses route 969. The tiny intro is a premature and unjustified WP:SPINOFF of List of bus routes in London#900–999. Suggesting the deletion of Mobility buses in London and redirection of London Buses route 969, as agreed. Perhaps this time also locking the redirect. For the full background, read WP:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969.gidonb (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. gidonb (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4. Entirely identical to the pre-redirect article save for a single sentence. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and drop a Whale on Garuda3's talk page. This is a blatant policy violation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m merely doing what was suggested when I contested the close. Garuda3 (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per others. Also salt both articles. This was a result of a particular user not getting their way in this AfD ... as we can see they tried to get the moderator to overturn the result, then went to the Deletion Review process where the close was endorsed. While there is justification for a Mobility buses in London article, and this was discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969, it needs to be done independently and ideally via approved for mainspace via the AfC process. Ajf773 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I argued for a partial merge and that suggestion was adopted by the closer, though outside the direct scope of the close itself. Would have been awesome if someone who wants to preserve transit material would use this "fixed route" to add some specific content for this bus in the list. Such content is already shared for many other buses but here the wheels never went round. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have merely followed what was suggested by the closer and others at the time by starting a new page on mobility bus routes in London. There is ample content here for a split given the sheer size of List of bus routes in London. Garuda3 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's "ample content" why did you just copy-paste the redirected article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of bus routes in London is already too long - it needs content splitting out not merged in. That’s what “ample content” is referring to. The new article is a start - you’re welcome to expand it if you wish. Garuda3 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) per Ajf773 - A blatant disregard to the consensus both at the AFD and the DR. Imho given the level of disruption it should be salted but that's just my opinion. –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE Garuda3 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. G4 stands for Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Bold and large font is in the source. So nobody will miss it! gidonb (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new page on a broader scope using the existing content. That isn’t recreating the same page. It was also what was advised by the closer at the time. Garuda3 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make GoldenBootWizard276's opinion anything near to just a vote. You created a content fork of an article that had just been deleted. It is close enough to the original article for some participants in this discussion to consider it the same page. The proof that it is very close is that you next altered the redirect that had just been decided and reconfirmed by community consensus. This was a setup on your end to circumvent and disrespect the WP community immediately after your opinion had twice not been accepted. gidonb (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very close, as all I was doing was following Star Mississippi’s advice to start a new page for mobility buses. Try assuming good faith. Garuda3 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may ultimately release you from a sanction, but it is weak to hide behind others when you circumvent community decisions. Meanhwile, please do not put unfounded reactions here like justavote, when opinions contain a rationale. It again communicates disrespect for the opinion of others. gidonb (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may ultimately release you from a sanction threatening sanctions isn’t very friendly - if you have a problem then raise it.

As for JUSTAVOTE, the editor was copying others and gave no rationale as to why the guideline they are referring to applies. Garuda3 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening you with sanctions. Exactly the opposite: I am asessing that you might get away with this. It doesn't make your behavior right. GoldenBootWizard276's opinion contains a rationale (G4) that makes perfect sense based on your own statement It is indeed very close. From now on, please give others more space to express their opinions and adhere to the THIRD community decision on this matter, whatever it may be! gidonb (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore AfD outcome i.e. Delete this and restore the redirect to London Bus Routes 969 as suggested in the nomination — as it was how the previous AfD was closed, and validated in the DRV. Bit naughty to recreate the article with no meaningful change. Don't agree with salting Mobility buses in London as there hasn't been repeated re-creation just the one (WP:SALT) and in the AfD it was suggested as a potentially valid topic for Wikipedia. Rupples (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Keith Miller. L Faraone 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of Keith Miller

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

Keith Miller's military career is not notable. There are no sources which cover his military service separately from the rest of his life. This article never should have been created. It's well past time we dealt with this excess from 2008. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have articles for individual seasons of other sports. I think the book references are enough to establish notability. I discovered that the main Keith Miller article is too large for IAbot, which is an argment in favour of keeping this article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for taking a chainsaw to that article. This isn't even about sports it's about his military career which is not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reason for deletion smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no notability issue - the book references clearly show that Miller's military career is covered by multiple and valid independent sources, and insofar as it concerns one aspect of his life it's a valid split of the main article. The nominator needs to go and read WP:LENGTH and find a proper reason for deletion, otherwise the nomination should be withdrawn. Deus et lex (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
75% of the article has zilch to do with his military service and is merely prosified cricket statistics. It is you who needs to review Wikipedia policy. This is a worthless fork born from the ~2008-2011 cricket insanity which formerly gripped this website and led to ridiculous stuff like Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 because people decided to forget WP:NOTEVERYTHING existed in favor of writing entire novels. But if you all prefer to keep articles about nothing, I guess that's your prerogative. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting in things like "this is a worthless fork" and "ridiculous stuff" as a genuine response to asking someone to justify their nomination is really not helpful. You are engaging in bad faith nominations for no reason, and to be honest you really have a generally bad attitude towards other users on AfDs - this isn't the first time you've generally just attacked someone else because they call out the lack of any suitable reasoning. If you can't be constructive, please just stay off AfDs altogether. Deus et lex (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You are engaging in bad faith nominations for no reason Bad faith nomination? That's a nice one. This was a perfectly valid good faith AfD, you just don't like it. I will not be bullied out of AfD by you. Just because a few editors appear everywhere to say keep with zero rationale doesn't make AfDs "invalid". Do feel free to keep making personal attacks though, as you undermine yourself every time you do so. If you have an issue with me, you know how to find ANI, but your own conduct would hurt your report quite a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are book references here that give in-depth coverage of his military career. I'm not really seeing a suitable reason for deletion here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly in-depth coverage of cricket statistics, but we aren't a cricket fansite. Miller's military service is an afterthought in this article in favor of play-by-plays of cricket matches, failing to show any encyclopedic value. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Rugbyfan was suggesting there are sources available that justify the content of the article. Saying that "we aren't a cricket fansite" has no reference to any Wikipedia policy and again is a bad faith response. Don't just attack users when they call out your lack of reasoning. Deus et lex (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NOTFANSITE. Please stop lying, it reflects poorly on you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller, where most of the content is already included. Frankly, this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Miller gained essentially no notability during his military career, and this is largely WP:UNDUE detail, which is mostly duplicated in the main article as well. As to the coverage in sources, it appears that the coverage is largely as a less important facet of Miller's life, not as a stand-alone notable subject on its own. There's no real basis to include this content in a separate article, rather than in pared down form in the main article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller, no independent notability imv. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per Hog Farm. Wikipedia is a summary site, not an exhaustive repository of all factoids. That SIGCOV is necessary for a topic to have a standalone article does not mean a standalone should be created for every individual aspect of a notable subject that receives SIGCOV. Otherwise we would have separate articles on every single article subsection longer than like five sentences. Literally every person highly notable for non-military activities who incidentally also happened to serve would have a "military career" article. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller#War service where it's covered in adequate detail. No need for this content fork article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per HF and JJ above. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kangleipak (disambiguation)

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

All of the listed items seem to be WP:PTM violations, so there's nothing to actually disambiguate. Joy (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Manipur. Joy (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 22:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine George-Graves

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

~~WP:ROTM professor, also being heavily edited by promotional SPAs. LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 20:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 22:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This page should not be deleted. It just needs to be updated as it is significantly outdated. I tried to update it with the correct information but it is being undone. Alesondrac (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alesondrac (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#5, as the occupant of the Naomi Willie Pollard chair, and per WP:NAUTHOR#3 as the creator of a significant and well-known body of work. pburka (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets notability based on the 3 books she has published alone. Here are a couple of academic reviews for The Royalty of Negro Vaudeville. Both Urban Bush Women and The Oxford Handbook of Dance and Theater (which she edited) won "Honorable mentions" for the Sally Banes Publication Prize given by the American Society for Theatre Research. The editing of the OUP handbook as well as presidency of Congress on Research in Dance are clear indicators of eminence in the field. Abecedare (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby, would you mind re-evaluating and possibly withdrawing this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Mahmoud

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

Repeatedly recreated from redirect with zero citations to secondary sources. I was unable to find anything relevant online; my ability to search in Arabic is limited, but I did search for his "عبدالله محمود" "السيلية " and didn't turn up anything other than database entries. Deletion actually seems better than redirection, as this is a fairly common name if an idiosyncratic romanization. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the Arabic text isn't rendering correctly and is putting the quotation marks in unpredictable places, but you can see the search I used by looking in edit mode. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Qatar. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the name is too common to find anything of use. I can't locate sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 19:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sravana Sandhya

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mattigaajulu

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akka Mogudu

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyarekha (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete There are currently no sources on Google that meet the criteria for general notability. There may be important updates in the future because the show is still airing. DreamRimmer (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ardhangi (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vontari Gulabi

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madhumagalu (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. L Faraone 22:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism

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

This is a newly-created POVFORK of Theodor Herzl. While some of the claims about Herzl having antisemitic views (about some Jews) are accurate and should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia, as a whole the article is a polemic thoroughly unsuited for mainspace. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not cleanup and the topic does appear to have significant coverage (spanning many decades) distinct from general coverage of Herzl. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not a POVFORK. The word 'polemic' is misguided. The article sums up extensive (mainstream) scholarship on Herzl's article, its contexts in Herzl's life, Vienna and the broader contemporary world of antisemitism. If such a range of scholars dwell on the topic, there is no reason why wikipedia should not cover it, except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this isn't a POVFORK. You made clear this article isn't about Mauschel specifically, but Herzl. So we have one article (Theodor Herzl) where he is a Jewish hero, and another article (this one) where he is an antisemitic antisemite. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to read what I actually write in reply to that contention of yours, and not screw up the sentence by misreading it (reading half and ignoring the rest) to make out I was saying something I never said. By the way 'antisemitic antisemite' gives one no confidence in the quality of your objections here. That stands out as a very unusual examnple of what in rhetoric is called a pleonastic tautology.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no other way of describing the content of this article other than that it is repeating, repetitively and at great length, the claim that Herzl was anti-semitic. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have 600 edits to your credit, so it's understandable, not grasping that when scholarship puts out dozens of books and articles which either directly or indirectly analyse or refer to a topic, coverage on wikipedia will, if it is scrupulous and not lazy, obligatorily go through all of the relevant RS and paraphrase all of the angles. That is not repetition, unless voluminous scholarly discussion of a theme/topic is itself by its nature repetitive. If you actually read the article, you will observe to the contrary that it is quite nuanced. Now let others express their opinions.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This very clearly is not a duplication of the topic of Theodor Herzl, it is a specific sub-topic related to him. It should also be in his biography, but this would overwhelm the biography to cover it in the depth that we have here, which makes this a child article not a POVFORK. Not liking something being covered is not cause for deletion, sorry. nableezy - 21:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously so, sources clearly demonstrate a notable topic. Not liking that you had a contested moved reverted is not cause for AFD, what counts is that sources treat this as a topic. You don’t like the title? Propose a move, not retaliate with a a bad faith nomination because your undiscussed move was reverted. nableezy - 21:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as needed. OP clearly misunderstands what a WP:POVFORK is. A new article expanding on a limited aspect of a topic is not a fork at all. As the extensive list of scholarly sources indicates, this is not a fringe topic either. Not liking it counts for nothing. Zero^talk 02:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impressive academic undertaking here but textbook violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Practically none of the sources presented here explicitly address "Zionist antisemitism". Merge material as appropriate to Theodor Herzl and other relevant pages. Loksmythe (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your superb speed-reading abilities. You managed to examine 70 sources, about 1,500 pages, in just one day to assure yourself that none spoke of 'Zionist antisemitism'. Did you just search for "Zionist antisemitism"? I ask because all of the texts on Herzl and Mauschel, and many others, specifically discuss it and the antisemitic character of what Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote. I.e., you would delete a fair coverage of a significant field of scholarship that does discuss what the title refers to, on the basis of a disingenuous equivocation that would legitimate an extremely sophisticated 'technical' objection. I don't do original research on wiki (if only I were allowed to, this would be a very different article!). Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." I'm sure much of this material could be appropriately merged into Theodor Herzl and other related articles. Cheers. Loksmythe (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You voted delete, not merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've appended a merge element, thanks. Loksmythe (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show examples of my writing anything here that combines multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicit in any source, please indicate them. I for one would be alarmed at this kind of lapse were it to exist, and would of course, if your examples and your analysis of each case were cogent, intervene and fix such passages. I dislike a lot of what I write on wiki precisely because I have trained myself not to synthesize sources, and the result tends to be, to my academic eye, stylistically uneven, awkward. But that is the rule: go through all sources, closely summarize each, and arrange the results in thematic sections. I hew to it rigorously (as far as I am aware).Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise which of the sources provided explicitly mention both "Mauschel" and "Zionist antisemitism", per the title of this Wikipedia article. Loksmythe (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I wasted three weeks of my time writing this. I worked. I expect people who make wild charges to roll up their sleeves at least for a few hours, rather than brandishing red flags and expecting me to chase it up. You made the claim, so the burden is on you. By the way, I see you just reverted the link to this article which I had added to Theodor Herzl. That is contradictory. You press, on advice, a merge of this with that article, and, simultaneously, expunge any mention of it on that article.Nishidani (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the burden is on you to abide by Wikipedia's core policies and not violate WP:SYNTH. Please add whatever material you would like to Herzl, just follow core policies like providing corresponding references (WP:VERIFIABILITY) and making sure that material is WP:DUE. Cheers. Loksmythe (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize. You made an accusation, which I take seriously. I find no evidence to justify the accusation, so I called on your to provide it. Nothing. You dodge the point. I write difficult articles on subjects that many editors won't touch, and I do so by comprehensively reading and paraphrasing the scholarly state of the art. This article has been written up in exactly the same way that I wrote up Birkat haMinim. Despite the delicacy of the subject matter, no editor there ever objected. No wiki editor complained of WP:Synth there, because there is none, because I know after 90,000 edits what that rule obliges us to avoid. The only impression I have here is that either you have superhuman reading powers to read in one day what takes normal people months to read (the scholarship) or you just scrolled through, saw a lot of scholarship summarized, and tossed up an objection working on a hunch, - this Nishidunny guy must be cheating-by waving a red flag whose pertinence you refuse to document.Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your undue hostility and aggression is noted. I will await other members of the Wikipedia community to assess and comment. Loksmythe (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I shall do that too, but I feel obliged to note one point,

Shorter version.

(A) This is flawed. Some core brickwork fails to comply with normative measurements.

(B) Point out the flaws. If they exist, which I doubt, I'll fix them.

(A) No. The burden of proving this is not flawed is your responsibility.

(B) How do I know if, as you assert, I am guilty of flawed labour practices?

(A) The building code says that kind of brickwork can't be done

(B) I agree, and I don't use that kind of brick

(A) I think you do. The building code says you mustn't do that.

(B) I agree, to my knowledge no such coursework exists here.

(A) Prove that you lay no irregular brickwork, otherwise the building must be condemned

(B) You mean, the burden of proof of innocence lies on the accused, not the prosecutor?

(A) Your attitude is problematical (and that is banned also, per WP:AGF) for you are treating me hostilely and aggressively-

(B) Asking someone to prove a damaging claim against oneself is not aggressive. It is an exercise of a civil right, without which anyone could say anything and not be hauled to account, creating a disparity between the power of accusation and the right of defence in favour of the former.

TLDR version. I feel obliged to note one point, your personalization of this, as consisting of my undue hostility and aggression (hostility and aggression are always 'undue', that connotation is already present in the terms. One could argue that logical systems are hostile and aggressive in themselves, ergo avoid logic. In the great dialogue, the Gorgias, when Socrates pursues Callicles by insisting that he put his claims about oligarchy in logical terms, Callicles, who cannot give a syllogistic defense for his beliefs, gets angry in the end and walks off abruptly, in a huff. I'm not Socrates and you are not Callicles. But the analogy is heuristic for much of what happens here unless we bring ourselves to book and honour an obligation to account for our assertions. Put it less formally (avoiding the harassment of a syllogistic reduction, though it would make the same point):

A asserts some piece of composition is inferential, in synthesizing propositions that are not in the ashlar material which we use to build articles, He further states this putative building defect inside the structure observed breaks the guild's basic rule of construction, that we add, standard lego piece by lego, bits and pieces without sneaking in lego bits we secretly fabricated at home or in our private workplace.

The mason (B) responsible, perhaps miffed by the charge he has fiddled with a fundamental principle of architecture, will defend his integrity by a counter-claim to the passing foreman:'Please single out the brick work you say I moulded to suit my personal tastes, while cunningly hiding their deformity to deceive the relevant control authorities ('control authority' happens to be a phrase Herzl uses in his letters).

If the critic, A, refuses to point out parts of the wall, where this shoddy masonry putatively exists, but replies that it is the mason's duty to demonstrate, every brick in the edifice conforms to regulations, faute de mieux, the structure must be demolished, B will justifiably challenge A to demonstrate that his insinuation is grounded on verifiable facts, or forever hold his silence. If unknown to B, some vagrant coursework here and there can be shown to come from an unauthorized factory, B states that he will roll up his sleeves, remove the unsound and unstable bricks, and replace them with those that have the guild's approval, but he cannot do so until the original complaint is backed by evidence.

Were this not the case, and were any passing A allowed to raise technical objections without providing examples of defective work that would validate his claim, all workplaces would collapse. A would be invested with a right to raise suspicions, and B would be deprived of a right of appeal, a right to ask that the serious claim he has abused guild rules be shown to have an empirical basis, otherwise B's reputation as a craftsman would be sullied by a cloud of gossip, rather than being vindicated or condemned by due process. B is not being 'hostile' or 'aggressive'. B would simply be asserting his right to work without unproved imputations being thrown his way. Nishidani (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An encyclopedic article on an encyclopedic topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is more than adequately sourced, but it's rather wordy and I'm not seeing the need for it, as it gets too far down in the weeds. I'd merge some of it back into the main article from which it was forked. I can't understand most of it, so won't !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will certainly undertake to make it more readable, when this settles, but the priority in a short few weeks, was to organize and summarize the pertinent scholarship. I don't think any of this could be merged into the Herzl article, which has its own problems, particularly its neglect of several major biographies of Herzl, in favour of googled reviews, short essays and pieces of 'stuff' one googles off the web. (For example, given Herzl's abiding obsession with finance, esp. Jewish finance, there is no mention in that article of the important formative facts of the ruin his father suffered in the great early 1870s financial collapse, as documented in Ernst Pawel's fine bio, The Labyrinth of Exile: A Life of Theodor Herzl.). In short, given the importance of Herzl, he deserves a GA/FA quality article, not the mess we have there, which a merge from this would only complicate. And of course editors are extremely protective of that article, and I have no time for editwarring).Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to 'weeds', they are seeded into footnotes, which are absolutely necessary because most people would, I suspect, think many of the remarks in the article are odd. The weedy footnotes simply supply those curious enough to want more detailed information to see the textual bases for the article's more straightforward prose. No one is obliged to read them, and those who might suspect this is original research can, without any time-consuming search in a library, verify the sources referred to. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very informative article about a significant subject. Inclusion in the main article about Theodor Herzl would significantly unbalance that article, so a separate, linked, is the better solution. A brief summary of this article should be included in the biography. RolandR (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundari (Bengali TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundari (Kannada TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjithame

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninaithale Inikkum (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swaraj Shetty

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

Moved by creator avoiding AFC, not clear how they pass WP:NACTOR? Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly-referenced promo piece on a non-notable actor. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, India, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per DoubleGrazing's decision. It is non-notable for Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written article with sources that do not have WP:SIGCOV of the actor, and fails WP:GNG + WP:NACTOR Karnataka (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the reasons above Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW. I know it's a day early, but nobody (except the creator) wants to keep the article, and several editors have called for a speedy, so I can't see consensus going any other way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross (Wikipedian)

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

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Philip Cross (Wikipedia Editor) (February 2023), where there was a unanimous consensus to delete. The current article is a polemic and not a neutral encyclopedia entry, propose deletion per WP:TNT and WP:BLP1E. Prod has been reverted by author. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the idea that Cross having an entry in List of Wikipedia controversies, but I don't see why that should involve the merging of any material from this version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a poorly-sourced argumentative navel-gazing essay masquerading as a biography. Utterly unencyclopedic, and doesn't even remotely belong in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump when did the BBC became a "poor source"?

can you please be specific to "argumentative navel-gazing essay" as most of what is written was paraphrased from reliable sources. The strcuture of the article is similar to the BBC about the topic. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than erecting straw men here, your time would be better spent reading WP:RS, and than considering whether quotations from Twitter posts made by random Wikipedia contributors fall within the guidelines... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is citing the BBC and use its editorial guideline is a strawman? FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in debating WP:RS policy with someone who cites robot-mangled plagiarised gobbledygook as a source. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC? no one used whatever you linked as source FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an outright falsehood. You linked it here. [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and it was removed. I mean, you want to delete the article becuase of a 2nd reference to verifiable infromation? now the source is gone, does that mean you will change your mind? FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go away. Get a clue. Come back when you have one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator (polemical text and not a neutral encyclopedia entry). Can't be saved.—Alalch E. 18:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. when the tag was put, there were not disucssion on the talk about neutrality and I think you should provide at least a sentense or two, that is not backed by a source and has bias. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had the damn AfD nomination dialog open in Twinkle and refreshed the page to see this! I'm on the fence as to whether the article actually ought to be deleted, which is why I didn't actually click "submit". It is truly a terrible article, starting from the bizarre emphasis on "he made a hundred thousand edits in fourteen years, whoa" -- note for the record that I've made about ninety thousand in nine years (of which I was only actively editing for three). I also removed a bizarre passage about how his identity was "mysterious" because... some columnist didn't know his real name? What? Nobody knows my real name either, or for that matter Hemiauchenia's, or for that matter several of our currently seated arbitrators (who have names like "Izno" and "Barkeep"). It is kind of strange to see these things turned into FUD topics when they are true of some few hundred (thousand?) editors. I am not sure if it would be possible to write an article about this topic that wouldn't be a disaster. For example, note that it claims he has 133k edits: he actually has 210k. Do we cite... xtools? In mainspace? Furthermore, and more importantly, the actual guy (User:Philip Cross) is currently indef-blocked for topic ban violations. Shouldn't this be in an article about his Wikipedia editing career? Isn't this relevant information (especially given it refers to his editing in the present tense)? But then we are citing... our own arb enforcement pages in a BLP? Isn't that kind of idiotic?

But, at the same time, it kind of looks like there is WP:SIGCOV. Also, it kind of makes us look like jackasses if we reflexively delete the article, given that most of the (asinine) charges being leveled against us on the subject are that some kind of shadowy cabal activity is suppressing the truth. That said, if restricting ourselves to reliable sources means that the only article we're able to write is laughably incorrect, we should simply not have one, especially if it is a WP:BLP. jp×g 18:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross was personally harassed as a result of this controversy. Sputnik literally sent a guy around to his house. Technically we could write an article on Chris Chan, there's more than enough sources to do so, but should we? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG that what the sources says and that what avoiding original research means. That even if I can read what is written on your page, I cannot use it as reference. read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia as for the other points, I think coverage by BBC covers that FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read WP:CIR, because it's clear you don't understand Wikipedia policy at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What I'm saying here is that if you are trying to write an article based on reliable sources, and the only information you're able to write in said article is badly out-of-date, ridiculous, or untrue, this is an indication that the subject is not covered thoroughly enough by reliable sources to write a Wikipedia article about it. jp×g 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG and what is your source for that? FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: The idea that we should not knowingly make false claims about living people seems so utterly fundamental to policy that I am confused as to your question. I hate to be brusque in this way, but I really do think you should refrain from further posting on the subject until you have read the entirety of WP:BLP. jp×g 18:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the phrase "at the time", to avoid this problem and again what do you mean by "knowingly" what is your source for that? FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the bar should be rather high on Wikipedia writing about its own editors. Particularly when they're being secretive, there is a risk that a lot of the information that journalists can gleam about these people comes from the Wikipedia-ecosystem itself, so if we start using those journalists' words to feed our ecosystem, we're creating a sort of citogenesis cyclotron of ever more drastic circulating rumours. Positive feedback turns random clicks into howls of anguish. Let's not go that way. Elemimele (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele I do not think it is good to hide things. We write article about many topic and I do not think your arguement fit any policy of notablity or coverage FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting hiding things; the world is free to air our laundry. I'm saying that there is too much danger that we will write an article supported by a journalist who in turn wrote his article by reading what we are writing about Philip Cross's Wikipedia career in venues like this. I.e. it's circular, and in writing the article we're just writing our own personal opinions as though they were fact, because they've been sanitised by passing through the digestive system of the BBC. Incidentally, the first two sources are in places near-word-perfect identical, which doesn't speak well of them as acts of independent journalism. Elemimele (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as I am not sure if the author can do nothing but oppose), on the previous deletion discssuion the main point of contention was negative BLP and WP:POLEMIC violation. On this article, I tried (to the best of my ability), to use the BBC article as a guide on how to write about this topic and be as neutral as possible. I understand that writing about editors is normally avoided especially in a negative way but i really don’t think pushing things under the carpet is the answer. Up to now, I am yet to find any1 here citing a specific policy or referring to a something specific which is really worrying to say the least. The previous discussion also eluded to a conspiracy which is also problematic.

We have a list of Wikipedia controversies to remind us to do better and keep an eye out, and not to diminish our collective effort or portray Wikipedia in bad light, and this is another reminder. Be safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page, regardless of the intent of the creator. Phrasing throughout the article such as ... who has generated controversy and scrutiny due to their extensive editing activities casts aspersions on a living person. Murray's unreliable blog post, used as a source, contains targeted harassment and abuse of a living person.

The three sources that contribute to notability (two BBC and one Haaretz) are from May/June 2018 and are largely about one incident involving Cross and George Galloway, such that this additionally fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED (or WP:BLP1E) and could be (non-speedily) deleted through AfD if the article is not speedily deleted. — Bilorv (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/merge~~ redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies as mentioned by author. Regardless of the fact that the article is written in an unencyclopedic manner, the topic does not have sufficiently enduring notability for a standalone article per bilrov. small jars tc 19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I hadn't realised the topic was already covered at the target, and performing the merge would cause more trouble per Alalch E. small jars tc 00:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Wikipedia controversies. I think this is a topic that belongs on Wikipedia, but not as its own article, what more is there to say of note about the subject of the article other than the controversy? -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies per SmallJarsWithGreenLabels and Asheiou's decisions. CastJared (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to merge, history needs to be retained, and this page should be deleted so that this content is not accessible. Perhaps you are advocating simple redirection but calling it a merge. When merging, content is copied over to the target article, and this content... is not good.—Alalch E. 20:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. As Alalch said, merging and redirecting are not options here because it would remain in the revision history. I'll echo calls for the author to read WP:CIR; no one with even passing familiarity with our policies should think this type of gossip-rag article is remotely acceptable. DFlhb (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G10. There's no way this should stay in the revision history in the event of a merge. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G10 and redirect: Is biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced and there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Fails WP:BLP1E, and would be better off just in the list. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 02:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: NightWolf1223 has blanked this and tagged for G10. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 03:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment about its notability or anything else about this discussion, I agree with Liz's decision to decline the G10 nomination as this article does not, in my assessment, meet those criteria. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have untagged the article. I think since this AFD is in progress, it is better to come to a decision here rather than a quick speedy deletion. If the AFD decision is to Delete, then this decision could be enforced if there are future versions of this article that pop up. An article that is deleted by CSD can always be recreated with the smears toned down. This is an important discussion about whether there should be articles in main space about anonymous Wikipedia editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Continuing from what I said before, and perhaps for the benefit of anyone reading I think it is important to stress that deleting this merely for reflecting poorly on Cross is a bad argument and would set a bad precedent. Note, for example, that we have articles on both the Seigenthaler affair (which doxes the guy who wrote the article) and the Essjay controversy (which features not only his name, but a bigass photo of Essjay in its lead). The difference is that both of them have a solid assload of citations demonstrating sustained, in-depth coverage; what was the deal with the Siegenthaler hoax? What was the deal with Essjay? We are capable of writing the whole story, in a way that's reliably sourced and verifiable, which is why it is good for us to have articles about them. In this case, however, the entirety of the coverage seems limited to a couple complaints in 2018, none of which seem to have subsequently been revisited (Philip did continue editing for several years afterward, seemingly without attracting any attention from media outlets by doing so, even though he kept doing basically the same stuff as he was before). This means that it is not possible for us to write an article that tells the whole story without resorting to weird borderline original research like "what percentage of Wikipedia's top editors are actually pseudonymous?" or "how many edits does he actually have?" et cetera. jp×g 08:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG I agree with your argument. It’s really a good one tbh and frankly make sense. A mention on the List of Wikipedia controversies, I think, will be enough for a problem this size. Stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe this is an attack page but I would say the same it this about, say, a journalist for The Economist (chosen as an example because its articles are written anonymously). I agree that negative articles about Wikipedians who wish to remain anonymous can be warranted when the sourcing is there and the tone is neutral. For Essjay, it was in the formative years on Wikipedia and generated media and academic discussion about internet anonymity and crowdsourcing knowledge from unqualified individuals. — Bilorv (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some relevant content on this belongs at List of Wikipedia controversies but the writing here is so outside of neutral that I can't support maintaining the revision history or the current language. Cross doesn't seem notable outside of a single burst of reporting; there is no sustained coverage on them. Also it's deeply unclear to me why "The Philip Cross Affair" is treated as a secondary title and redirects here, since as far as I can tell that's only the title of one blog post ([3]). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Overly polemical attack page, also general lack of verifiability and sourcing. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 02:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the above, some of this could be rewritten into List of Wikipedia controversies, but fails the 10Y test (or even the 10 minute test...) - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely because this is at best borderline notable and the BLP implications mentioned at this AFD. Afterwards though, redirect to List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2018, where the Haaretz and BBC sources can be used. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's ever any point to redirecting disambiguated titles with parentheses in them. You'd need to type the exact title, guessing which disambiguation was used (was it "Wikipedian"? was it "Wikipedia editor"?) in order to reach the redirect, since it wouldn't show up in the search. DFlhb (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/Strong delete. Unacceptable attack page. It's inconceivable that this should even have reached this stage. Should have been deleted as an attack page at the very outset. Violates the most basic principles of BLP and everything the Wikipedia community stands for. My words may mean nothing, but my sincerest best wishes to Philip Cross. Disgusted to see this. --Technopat (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly decided to remove myself from this conversation and let Wikipedia do its thing. Howver, There are mentions of personal attacks but you added a layer of disgust which is just intriguing.

The thing we write here has consequences in real life, actually this is part of real life. For an editor to (1) edit pages in a very skewed way to the extent it catches BBC attention, and (2) go on twitter to call people - who he is actively editing their pages - “goons”, and (3) being blocked from editing on the topic of British politics and breach it. And you calling the message “disgusting”, and Not the actions?

kill the messenger! FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the arguments and materials presented so far, it seems more appropriate as a short entry in the "List of Wikipedia controversies" article, rather than as a standalone article with a lot of problematic content. JoseJan89 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otelo

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

Fails WP:ORG. Practically no WP:SECONDARY sources to be found anywhere, bar the occasional passing mention in British government documents (example). Doesn't seem to have existed for some time, but no further information is available. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced for over a decade about a now-restructured minor governmental agency. The primary topic for the name would probably be as a Spanish-language spelling of Othello - a redirect to a section of Ofcom would not be appropriate. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walt Yoder: I'd move Otelo (disambiguation) to Otelo, except if we consider Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho to be the primary topic, since he gets more views than any other Otelo by a degree of magnitude. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough, with no real significant changes made to the article since its creation almost 20 years ago. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha, Florida

AfDs for this article:

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

This was recreated within months of its first deletion, but the second version is just another GNIS dump stub, and any look at all in old topos and aerials shows that it was just an area of orchards with a rail line running through it until sometime in the 1980s, when it was overrun by sprawl. Possibly it was rail spot, but it clearly wasn't a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything in the Orlando newspapers about Bertha; while there's a lot of noise in the search from first names and hurricanes, I'd expect to at least find a mention of it if this place was at all significant. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It isn't notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper too. CastJared (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not a notable place. And – Wikipedia is not a newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable place Karnataka (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nabela Noor

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

Appears non-notable. The BBC is simply a link to an image of the individual in context of another program, the Rolling Stone article is ok-ish, but brief. Rest are in non-RS and I can't find much else that what is used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources that prove notability Karnataka (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There's so many citations from reliable pubs that covers her in depth, such as from People magazine, paper mag, Teen Vogue, allure mag, the daily star, dhaka tribune, anandabazar, the cut, insider, entertainment weekly, and so on. Also, there's many more that aren't included in the article but are on google. I'm just surprised how this can be brought at afd stating lack of notability. Also, the BBC one is just one of the many citations listed, it's not the only major one. It lacks in depth coverage, sure, but not all sources need to be, some can be just secondary/mentioning source used to cover some minor facts or statement. There are other sources that are in depth. It's just cherry-picking one bad source and avoiding the evaluation of the good sources. X (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Large parts of this article are from another website and might violate copyright. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Nabela_Noor Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minor update, I've removed the copyrighted content. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate press coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Multiple editors including Xklaponik and Dr_vulpes have helped to fix what was a problematic stub with cut-and-paste copyvio content. Yes, we do see a lot of highly questionable social media influencer bios at AfD, but this one has a lot of coverage in secondary sources including editorial commentary on the content she produces. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temidayo Enitan

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

Another article about a non-notable brand influencer and actor. He has only played minor roles in the listed films. As an actor fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. A long list of non-notable awards to go with. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the sources used are him flaunting a new car, we're on thin ice. Being an accountant isn't notable, a post-graduate certificate from a community college in Toronto isn't. Rest is typical fluff nonsense. No sources found and a long way from GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a puff piece for a non-notable influencer. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreliable sources that don't prove the notability + fails WP:NACTOR Karnataka (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Alaka

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

The regular "social media entrepreneur" article whose sources are well mostly paid like in this case. The sources about the subject are promotional pieces. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and does not meet WP:IS. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Karnataka (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Touching lives and adding value" is typical PR fluff used for sources. Delete, not notable and no sources found we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure PR fluff piece. Also fails WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Folasade Omotoyinbo is an article on a related subject, with similar issues, and the same author. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 22:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPI Automotive Design

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

Seems to fail WP:COMPANY. There are countless car tuning companies around the world, and this doesn't seem to have anything significant to have its own article. The MotorTrend source simply states what this company did and the other source doesn't have any link to this article at all. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Germany. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article appears promotional in tone. And doesn not appear to be notable either. Ajf773 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf - Promotional article, Fails SIGCOV & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bon Jovi (album). (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burning for Love

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

Procedural AfD following a contested WP:BLAR by another editor. Searching online and on Google Scholar, I'm unable to find sources discussing this song as a single or otherwise on its own: all available coverage is in the context of the album Bon Jovi (and even at that, is rarely deeper than a mention as part of a setlist). Restore the Redirect to Bon Jovi (album) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album or delete as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bon Jovi (album): Found no additional coverage. Might be worth having a double-check of Japanese archives just in case they got on it, but there's almost certainly nothing on it in the US press. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bon Jovi (album) - This was possibly created under old guidelines allowing an article if a song was released as a single, but that won't cut it anymore when there is nothing else to say except that it was released. The song has no notice of its own and it does not appear to have generated much press in Japan either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bon Jovi (album) per above. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Smith-Dorrien

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

Justice of the Peace and militia lieutenant colonel do not confer notability. Sources are inadequate. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I'm fairly confident that additional offline sources exist for the subject, but I am fully aware of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, and so while I'm not in the position to find offline sources about the subject to prove my assertion, I've emailed the Berkhamsted Local History and Museum Society to ask if they have any offline sources about him. I will update once I receive a response from them, which hopefully should be soon. If I'm wrong about the existence of additional sources, then I would support a merge to a relevant article about the Smith/Dorrien-Smith/Smith-Dorrien family. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So BLH&MS got back to me, and they've informed me that at least two articles exist which discuss Robert Smith-Dorrien, one by Ken Wallis in the magazine Chronicle VIII, and another about a Mrs Mary Anne Smith-Dorrien (not sure what the publication was, but I think it was Chronicle as well). Beyond that, they've said that sources are limited. I'm sticking with my keep !vote for now (obviously, I'm the article creator!) due to the existence of those 2 sources plus the ones already cited on the article, but I do think we've found ourselves in a strange situation, where we know that sources exist, but I don't have access to them (You can buy past copies of the Chronicle on their website, but I'm not in a position to do that). What does everyone else think? HenryTemplo (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get an impression of the offline sources you mentioned. What is "Chronicle VIII" magazine and who is/was Ken Wallis please? Google searches are coming up with hits but they don't seem of obvious relevance. Rupples (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the page on the BLH&MS website for the Chronicle magazine: [4]. Ken Wallis appears to be a member of the society’s committee, beyond that, I’m afraid I don’t know anything about him ([5]). Hope this helps! HenryTemplo (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several lengthy obituaries accessible through Newspapers.com. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There's an obituary and coverage of his funeral in the Hertfordshire Mercury. He seems to have been highly thought of and respected locally and by his military connections. There are mentions of the amount left in his will in local newspapers in other areas where he had family. Some of his family connections are clearly notable.

The local history society sources I take to be reliable. There doesn't appear to be anything in Wikipedia notabilty policy placing restrictions on writing articles about people where coverage is limited to local sources. The relevant guideline is WP:BASIC or the GNG as he doesn't appear to fall under any of the additional criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons WP:NOTNEWS and he is remembered by local historians.

I'm not getting a sense of notability from the subject's lead paragraph as to achievement or why he should be remembered beyond Berkhamstead, but maybe that's not relevant. Don't see any deciding factor to keep or delete but what sources there are seem limited. If not kept as a separate article, aspects of his life could be covered within articles on his more notable relatives. Rupples (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think there is just enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources given + a number of other smaller mentions in the newspapers. Note I have open accessed (clipped) the newspapers.com sources so everyone can now access. If alive or recently dead maybe not but I give a bit more leniency to historic figures. KylieTastic (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection releases

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Seems like the consensus has shifted since the last AfD, at least that is what this discussion suggested since no other editor of the WikiProject truly contested the claims made. _Jovian ^Eclipse 14:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _Jovian ^Eclipse 14:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _Jovian ^Eclipse 14:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same discussion:

Why delete and take the fun away from cinephiles? Espngeek (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PLEASEDONT Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I will copy and edit what I said in the other discussion: Why are the only sources to in the article to www.criterion.com? It has no third party sources to show it even has notability. This really is just carbon copy of their website, in Wiki format. Mike Allen 17:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a thousand times easier to digest as a reader. If I'm looking up basic info on a Criterion release I'm not going to their website, I'm going straight to this page. Tj902 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Criterion Collection page is very useful, and as such should not be deleted. Blankspace540 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADGERING jp×g 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think List of Criterion Collection releases is the type of article that might have some encyclopedic value, but the notability of the article needs to be established in accordance with WP:LISTN. As MikeAllen points out, the lack of secondary sourcing in this article is a concern. I think the List of Criterion Collection boxed sets and List of Criterion Collection LaserDiscs are a different matter altogether; whilst I can well believe that the Criterion Collection as a whole is notable as an encyclopedic topic, I do not consider it plausible that the different format listings for the collection are notable on their own terms. So, my conclusions:

List of Criterion Collection releases – ?
List of Criterion Collection boxed sets – Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY
List of Criterion Collection LaserDiscs – Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY

Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan you inspired me a new reply

List of Criterion Collection releases – Keep
List of Criterion Collection boxed sets – merge to List of Criterion Collection releases
List of Criterion Collection LaserDiscs – merge to List of Criterion Collection releases

Filmman3000 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any truly notable releases (firsts, landmarks, etc.) can be (and probably are) included at The Criterion Collection without the need for this indiscriminate list of releases. --wooden superman 08:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a purchasing guide. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I used to contribute to this list a lot, but per WP:LISTN it doesn't really help people. Similar to the past how List of Arrow Films releases was deleted, I don't think this one follows our rules. Which is a shame, because I do like using the list to sort by year/director/etc. for my own use... Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 13:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. In the case of the LaserDiscs lists, this was already a redirect in a previous discussion and was recreated under a slightly different title. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Group (retailer)

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

Article about a company that does not meet our WP:NCORP or WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. Sources are basically company listing websites and blogs. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draft-ify. Recently created article about a company which is promotional and does not demonstrate that WP:NCORP is met. The name is difficult to search for; a quick search did not find any good coverage, but I am not claiming that there is no such coverage. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. I'd agree with Walt Yoder here that this could be better off moved to draftspace for a while. There're some sources listed and perhaps there are more out there that could improve this article. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for your feedback everyone. I have made plenty of changes to the original page. I have included more sources from reputable sites and have taken out any language which makes the page sound promotional. 11:56, 5 June 2023 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07davisa (talk • contribs)
Delete - There is only one reference that would meet WP:ORGCRIT and that would be borderline. As far as draftify, creator has indicated they have included the sources so I would assume there is nothing else out there. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and was unable to locate anything of use. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ran through the sources in the article and not seeing a single one providing significant, independent, indepth coverage sufficient to pass the WP:ORGCRIT requirements of WP:NCORP, as most are not independent of the company. The Press article includes a lot of content in quotation marks explaining products' USPs presumably from the company itself, so is not independent and basically promotional. Can't see the Financial Times source as paywalled. Rupples (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume the Financial Times source does provide significant, indepth coverage of the business and therefore counts towards notability. However, further such sources are needed to satisfy the "multiple" requirement of ORGCRIT. Rupples (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Kelly

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player that didn't go anywhere in the Bigs, but has coverage in CBS Sports and a Chicago newspaper, should be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's current references include significant coverage from the Chicago Tribune, Baseball America, and the Charleston Gazette-Mail. Hatman31 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not seeing why the sources in the article would not qualify for GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Snow delete. It is disturbing to find so absolutely blatant and unmistakable a hoax which has persisted for over 17 years without being detected. JBW (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow fish (mythology)

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

(Nikhil Surya Dwibhashyam was the one who found the page.)

I've not been able to locate any reference to this supposed myth outside of sources clearly plagiarizing from the article.^[1]^[2]^[3] Thus all material that may be cited is CIRCULAR.

The only given source is a book A guide to Hinduism by an author C. M. Faren, but there exists no information on book nor author, that does not clearly derive from this article. One would further assume that a book with such title would be a general overview, and not mention such an obscure and insignificant myth as this one.

The nail in the coffin here is that the original author of this article, @Frog on a log:, was permanently banned for being a "vandalism-only account", having created at least one other hoax article citing a made-up book.^[4]

Examning these things together, this article is clearly a HOAX, and, as it appears, the longest-lasting one discovered. Mårtensås (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete per nomination. I too couldn't find anything about the currently cited book "A guide to Hinduism" by "C.M.Faren". Wow! Merko (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a hoax article by a bad faith author. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be so bad faith if they had written this a few thousand years earlier. Merko (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, an 18-year-old hoax! Delete, sadly, as it's clearly nonsense. I just feel bad for the guy who created a range of jewellery based on it, and the author of Death Comes for the Trophy Wife... Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 and A11, I couldn't found any reliable sources so its obviously a hoax. So, the article was obviously made up/coined by the creator of the article itself. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as hoax with the criteria A11 and obviously coined/made up with the criteria A11. Vitaium (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overtaxation of the United States

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

By its entire nature, this is an opinion editorial, not a neutral encyclopedic topic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the POV-wash starts at the article title and never goes away. Tony (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obviously just the creator's opinion. Indeed, the word "overtaxation" in the title makes it pretty hard to make an article that meets WP:NPOV, and the prose is definitely not neutral. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:SOAPBOX. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opinion piece - not neutral - and factually incorrect (claimed "during the Clinton Administration, the citizens were being taxed at a record high of 40% of income" but in the Reagan years the top rate was 50% and in the 1970s the top rate was 70%, and in 1944 the top was 94%) - the source used actually does not back up claim either and also actually states "for the vast majority of families, taxes are as low or lower than they have been in the past 20 to 30 years". Lastly all the examples are for Democratic presidents showing a clear bias - for instance during the Hoover administration as a Republican the top rate in 1931 of 25% to 63% in 1932 (or 56% for the same >100K range). KylieTastic (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unadulterated non-fact. :AsyarSaronen (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As others have said, is clearly editorial. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is inherently and irretrievably written from a very specific point of view. It could not be rewritten to meet WP:NPOV. Grachester (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Clearly non-neutral and unencyclopedic. Sal2100 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep - an opinion piece. Nuff said. Rupples (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the taxes are indeed too damn high, this collection of isolated claims about them is not an encyclopedia article, and I aver that it would be impossible for it to become one. jp×g 09:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Atehortúa

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

Former Millonarios youth academy player that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC; he doesn't seem to have had any kind of notable professional career at all. El Tiempo mentions him in passing in 2008, confirming his release from the club. I can't find any other news coverage in Colombian media. The Futbol Talentos source cited is unreliable as anyone can edit it. It does, however, suggest that he played in Bolivia. My Bolivian searches yield some hits like Los Tiempos, El Día and EA Bolivia but none of these are examples of WP:SIGCOV. ProQuest had two trivial mentions: EFE and El Espectador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Felipe Acosta

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

Potentially fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. I found La Nación, which might be the same Acosta, but is only a passing mention. There are plenty of namesakes. I thought that El Diario was an article about him but the age and place of birth do not match the goalkeeper that is the subject of this Wikipedia article so this source must be ignored. The only other sources that I found were Soccerway and the unreliable Transfermarkt, neither of which bring anything to the table in terms of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 11:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manager Hasan's World Tales

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

YouTube educational series but without any significant coverage cited, moved out of draft space by creator without any valid sources. YouTube series are not automatically notable as anyone can make one. In my own WP:BEFORE search, I was also completely unable to find any decent coverage of this series. At best, seems to be WP:TOOSOON as there is no apparent media coverage yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Entertainment, Education, Geography, Internet, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show doesn't premiere until next February, so this is obviously MADEUP. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasons mentioned above. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love how the only citation is to the UK edition of NatGeo Kids. But yeah non-notable self-promo. SWinxy (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage 33ABGirl (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Hammock, Florida

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

Doesn't appear to actually be a "populated place" in any legal or factual sense. It appears to have been a homestead, but a homestead of one family does not a community make. It is in GNIS, but numerous locality AfDs have established that a GNIS entry is insufficient to meet GEOLAND. Searching in Newspapers.com produce references to it as a "tract of land" or an estate, which supports my assertion that it isn't a community.

PROD'd with this rationale a few years back, but it was de-PROD'd. The edit summary indicates that the user appears to have misunderstood my reference to GNIS in the above rationale. Came up in my watchlist again recently and I realized I'd never taken it to AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see that I tagged the article as 'unsourced' 12 years ago. As originally written 17 years ago, the article indicated that the area was a hammock (a natural area) that was in the process of being converted to housing and commercial buildings. A quick Google and Google Scholar search found nothing usable about the area. The lack of citations to reliable sources might have been acceptable 17 years ago, but the lack of any usable source means it is time for it to go. - Donald Albury 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to a large tract of land or estate as described (somewhat sensationally) here when it was purchased by Edgar E. Brown in 1908. No evidence that this was ever a community nor that it received sufficient coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schust (founder)

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

Non-notable affiliate marketer. For more background: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic. Also, it has some UPE history US-Verified (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'''Delete''' per nom. Tirishan (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources appear to be brief mentions in RS. "Affiliate marketer" is a red flag, along with "crypto expert" here in AfD. From what I can translate, it's PR fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christel Quek

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable "technology entrepreneur". Falls short of WP:SIGCOV. For more background: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic. US-Verified (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BBC is an interview, rest are typical PR items. The "30 under 30 lists" and the like are non-notable. Removing the PR crypto items, we don't have much left for sourcing. Delete for not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BASIC - sustained coverage of her work. There is often not much depth, but there are more than trivial mentions over time that seem to support her notability. 41.46.55.166 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)— 41.46.55.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Most of the sources seem like webcruft and we don't typically take "X under X" awards as much more than grains of salt. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible self promotion with a single purpose editor working on it. The references are mainly passing mentions or PR. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Some of the cited sources mentions her as a tech entrepreneur, for example, The Guardian, CNBC, BBC. and bolt is a publicly traded company as discussed on the Bolt AfD so there might be more coverage around her, however, the article needs a revamp. 187.121.226.116 (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)— 187.121.226.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interesting that you found this AfD with your first edit on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CNBC and BBC is merely her describing the company and not WP:SIGCOV about her. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Related to Bolt which was deleted. Aside from the paid, sock, and AfC manipulation, the subject does not meet notability guidelines. She is mentioned in a lot of places for founding the company but there isn't anything in-depth. Even IP says "sources mentions her as a tech entrepreneur." That is correct, they mention her. We need to see references that "focus" on her.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the SPI and non-notable sources Karnataka (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt (social network)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Regular blockchain news reports. Falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. For more background: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic. US-Verified (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This company is WP:LISTED so a detailed WP:BEFORE source analysis might be useful to disprove WP:NCORP. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The BBC and CNBC sources seem legit but a quick WP:BEFORE analysis I did as the IP contributor suggested, barely passes SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BBC and CNBC are just interview videos with someone - Other than that I'm unable to establish any sort of notability. Fails SIGCOV and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree on the BBC/CNBC sources not being able to meet CORPIND, doesn't even appear to be the primary topic for "Bolt" AND "social network" which is never a good sign. Cannot verify claim of being listed, the cited source said "plans" but they had "plans" in 2021 too, where's the verifiable evidence? Smacks of process abuse. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instagram's Bolt app might be more notable by several orders of magnitude, and I have literally never heard of that one. (not that that's a good indication of whether something is notable or not, but I think that provides some context of other topics with the same name) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Daniel

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

Non-notable "entrepreneur, author and top influencer." Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much for sourcing, there's a Nigerian soccer player with the same name and another person that was arrested for something, I can't find mentions of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another influencer fluff piece which fails WP:GNG --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tresean Gore

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails GNG as fight announcements and fight results sources are merely routine reports Subject also fails WP:NMMA for not ranked top ten in the world. As present he ranked #336 in middleweight. Cassiopeia talk 04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and South Carolina. Cassiopeia talk 04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Does not meet criteria for WP:NMMA and passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good enough to stay especially because of his upcoming bout with hype train Bo Nickal. Have 3 or more bouts in UFC etc.. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NMMA have changed, its no longer 3 UFC fights to be considered notable. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Lethweimaster. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being ranked in the top 100, much less top 10, so clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. Typical reporting of sports results is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON Nswix (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Almgren Gândara

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

Doesn't meet GNG Nswix (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Nswix (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. L Faraone 22:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Urban Pedagogy

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

Fails WP:NORG. Falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. At first sight, you'll see coverage in sources who pass reliable sources in name, but as you dive in, there is a lot of said/explained executive director of the Center for Urban Pedagogy, courtesy of CUP type contents making them fail intellectually independent, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Plentiful of routine announcement type coverages of routine nature do not count towards notability.Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've done a little clean-up editing on the prose, structure, and sourcing, which it needed. This is a pretty influential firm in Brooklyn, as evidenced by the grants and awards. I only skimmed the surface on that, but it will do. Libray of Congress validates its notability and lists detailed info about the center, which includes "Civic improvement, City planning, Political participation, Art, and social action". World Cat pulls up hundreds upon hundreds of books and other information about Center for Urban Pedagogy. For some reason, Authority control retrieved an erroneous WorldCat link that doesn't work, so I've listed the current WorldCat link under "External links". — Maile (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment Which reliable secondary broad audience actual sources have intellectually independent, deep coverage on the organization? The Smithsonian magazine already in the article for example is a lot of "executive director says..." which fails independence criteria. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which fails independence criteria - No, there's independence of a source for the purpose of establishing notability, and then there's independence of a specific quote for the purposes of including a claim in the article. The Smithsonian is an independent source writing about this subject, and thus contributes to notability. If I were to include a bold claim based on a quote from the ED in the article, you'd be right to say that the quote is sourced to the ED, which is not independent. No need to get into that here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to pass WP:GNG. Among others, there's the Menking article in Architectural Design (paywalled, but accessible via WP:TWL), there's Dewhurst and Desai's article in the Journal of Social Science Education, the Smithsonian magazine piece, a bunch at Architect's Newspaper, coverage across a few pages in this book (published by MIT Press), an article in Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies (author copy here).... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment do look at the sourcing in the MIT Press article though. "CUP 2013a" and "CUP 2013b". Graywalls (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So we've determined it's a secondary source. Sounds good! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seth R.J.J. High School

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. The single source present is a school database. I found another source, but it talks about a function at the school and not about the school itself. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Gujarat. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was restore redirect‎ to List of Legends of Tomorrow characters#Gideon. The arguments for redirection were strong, even as the discussion has stalled without returning input on newer source additions. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon (Legends of Tomorrow)

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

Redirected as per WP:NPLOT, contested, but not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect restore unless reception section is expanded, or similar content showing notability (section on scholarly analysis, etc.) are added. WP:FANCRUFT in the form of plot summary belongs on Fandom, not Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would the new additons suffice? OLI 03:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a work in progress. Im working on adding more section I think this is a unfair nomination. OLI 03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we potentialy move the article into the draft space until I can provide enough information to warent the articles exitance. OLI 03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as if the complaint has been properly addressed and the nomination should be closed. OLI 03:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect - The sources available upon searches do not include anything beyond routine reviews/summaries of the episodes or casting news, and very brief, couple sentences worth of "reception" like the sources added to the article. The characters' section on the List of Legends of Tomorrow characters is already very detailed, and there is no coverage showing enough notability that splitting it out into a separate article would be justified. Rorshacma (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contraty it is very detailed on the seventh season. This goes further into detail and included Gideon's prior season seven experiance OLI 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per Rorshacma. No consensus to create this without addressing the WP:NOTABILITY concerns. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns have been adressed and I would like to state if you filter by year you can find more iformation on the chraracter. OLI 01:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a total of 18 citations I think its sufficent notability. OLI 01:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of citations has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG, its the actual reliability of the sources and the amount of significant coverage that goes beyond routine announcements within those reliable sources. Not only are many of these citations not reliable sources, others are the most trivial of mentions (i.e., reviews/summaries of an episode that mention the character in two sentences, like this one or this one). This one just lists the character's name in exactly one sentence saying no more than "she is in this episode". Filling an article with a multitude of trivial, low quality coverage does not demonstrate notability, and borders on WP:REFBOMBING. Rorshacma (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exluding those refrences you still have 9 articles. A few of the episode recaps directly name drop Gidoen in the article title or heavily talk about her. If you wish I can provide a list of articles with less refrences that haven't been nominated for deletion. OLI 04:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a work in progress. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should go to the Draft namespace. Gonnym (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legends of Tomorrow characters. Almost entire article is unsourced, WP:BEFORE shows nothing that talks the character directly. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was adressed in a prior statement. If you look at the refrences I would argue that more than half of them are about GIdoen. OLI 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were also several articles after the nomination. There exist several articels that havent been nominated that have fewer actual refrences than this one. OLI 13:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on sources, particularly ones added since the initiation of the AfD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Zapatlela. After a relist, the consensus was to merge and then redirect (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tatya Vinchu

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

Popular does not equal notable. Not enough in-depth coverage to overcome WP:NOTPLOT and to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zapatlela and/or its sequel. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to source. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment went ahead and WP:BOLDLY redirected the page since it seemed uncontroversial and any content is still there if someone wants to merge. I can’t close AfDs so feel free to close or revert if you think I misread consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and support the bold redirect as an WP:ATD, given the emerging consensus. The rest can be figured out through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, supporting the redirect Karnataka (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Woof

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

No independent sources provided in article. A search finds no sources that contributes to WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Netherlands, and Australia. BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article creator User:Pkeets has been blocked for socking since 2021 Sockpuppet investigations-Pkeets. Also, I find no sourcing results re Barbara Woof including searching the Australian Composers website, the Australian Dictionary of Biography, and the various sites at the bottom of the article generated by Authority Control. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could go under WP:G5 for this. The creator is blocked for sockpuppetry. CastJared (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As her compositions have been reviewed a lot, she passes WP:MUSICBIO #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."[6] These reviews are by professional music critics, extremely independent of the composer, in fine newspapers, and in fact, are not always flattering. While the sections about her work, and that of the other individual composers, are typically short, it is original third-party analysis, and as such nontrivial coverage. Next to this significant body of reviews, of course, there are other sources in existence that support data, rather than notability, that do not add to or subtract from Woof's notability. gidonb (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The compositions may have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself (although I can't see that from the link you provided), but she hasn't been and notability is not inherited. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published work, not may have been. Composers are reviewed through their work, just like academics, writers, and other musicians. Nominating a Dutch 20th century figure without checking Delpher is not recommended. Now that it has been pointed out to you that she has been covered a lot, it's better to withdraw than to argue. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

may have been, in reference to the compositions, as you haven't provided any sources including significant coverage of the compositions.

In reference to her, WP:MUSICBIO #1 doesn't support considering individuals notable on the basis of coverage of their work. I'm also not certain that MUSICBIO applies here; the article says she is a composer, but MUSICBIO only applies to musicians or ensembles. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composers, conductors, instrumentalists, and singers are different types of musicians. You never looked at Delpher. I have provided you with the link. Now please open the sources and read about the composer and her work. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentalists and singers are, but composers and conductors are not typically classified as musicians. Regarding Delpher, I'm asking you to provide a direct link to the articles that you were so convinced by; the ones I have looked at don't provide significant coverage of either Woof or her work. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing musicians with performers. Musician: One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.[7] Also please note that, in this case, the bar PER source is nontrivial coverage, NOT significant coverage. I.e. REAL analysis and not just listings or other passing mentions. The totality of the nontrivial coverage is significant coverage. gidonb (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning appears to vary depending on which dictionary you look at; Cambridge, Collins. Looking at the examples provided (bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.), which are all limited to those who perform music, I believe this guideline meant the narrower definition, not the broader one.

However, whether it applies isn't relevant. MUSICBIO #1 requires coverage of the subject, not of their works, and so far you've only been able to provide search results, not actual coverage of her or her work. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:CREATIVE#4 "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." PamD 09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. However, we don't even have sources showing critical attention, let alone significant critical attention - and WP:CREATIVE only makes a person likely to be notable, it doesn't presume notability. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE #4 is equally fine with me. We are usually not strict on the extreme with historic or retired women professionals. Note that the two opinions above me only refer to technicalities and should be discounted. The article was translated in 2010 from Nlwiki, where it is a stable entry since 2007. Ten years later, the translator got into serious trouble for matters totally unrelated to this article. Apparently, in 2020, they got carried away in discussions and abused socks to gain the upper hand. Bad but irrelevant to this AfD. Books that do not include a biography are also irrelevant when other books carry her biography. gidonb (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As is evident from the sources in the article, she also meets WP:BASIC and the WP:GNG. I haven't reviewed every source you've added to the article, but of the half dozen I looked at I didn't find any containing WP:SIGCOV. Can you link the best WP:THREE? BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best one. She is included in the Australian national dictionary of composers. The rest are reviews and do not need SIGCOV. Just, overall, need to contain significant critical attention for Woof. To put it mildly, no problem there :-). gidonb (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the source, but looking at your reference I believe it contains the following:

Barbara WOOF Date/s 2 September 1958– Place of Birth Sydney, NSW Education BMus (Hons), U of Sydney, 1981; Royal Conservatory, The Hague, Netherlands; Institute of Sonology, Utrecht. Peter Sculthorpe; Jan van Vlijmen; Jan Boerman. Dorothy Walker, Sharon Raschke, pft; Peter Walmsley, tpt. Fellowships and Residencies Res, SSO, 1992. Prizes and Awards University Travelling S'ship, 1982; First Prize, Martin Codax' Composition Competition, Spain, 1985. Commissions Fonds voor de Scheppende Toonkunst, Netherlands, 1986–95. Employment Utrecht School of Arts, 1988–. Other Lives in [the] Netherlands. 1 1/1 Select List of Works Banshee's Dance, 1992, orch, 3 min 15 sec. [etc.]

Such a list isn't WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's only part of the biographic entry. gidonb (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the aspect that you believe constitutes WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire entry. I brought only part of it. gidonb (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is more of the same and doesn't contain any independent prose then it is not WP:SIGCOV. If there is any independent prose can you quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. SIGCOV is not a focus of ether. You keep arguing instead of withdrawing. gidonb (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided an argument for her works having won significant critical attention, merely an assertion that they have. So far I see no reason to believe they have. As for ANYBIO, how does she meet that? BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the articles that contain said significant critical attention. She has an entry in the national dictionary of composers. gidonb (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at half a dozen of the sources the only critical attention I could find of her work was Moreover, she wrote a beautiful work with 'Canzone', which has a delicate timbre and a clear structure, offering the orchestra an ideal opportunity to immediately indicate how the cards have been shuffled this year. Given that "significant critical attention" is quite a high bar - I would expect multiple extensive reviews of her work in high quality sources - I don't think it is met.

She has an entry in the national dictionary of composers. ANYBIO requires an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (in Australia, that would be the Australian Dictionary of Biography); it doesn't apply to specialized national biographical dictionaries like the Biographical Directory of Australian Composers. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have retrieved the text from only one article. As noted, the totality is significant. gidonb (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I have understood correctly, you are saying that that there are several reviews of comparable size to the one I quoted, and collectively they constitute significant critical attention? BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Comparable or more extensive. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the sock puppet investigation. My own search can't find anything satisfying WP:GNG. Karnataka (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Prithviraj Sukumaran. While on a solely numerical basis this might at first look like a "no consensus", AfD is not a vote. Two of the keep arguments do not address at all the amount of available reference material about this subject, but only argue about what it has done, which is not relevant to notability. One keep argument does argue sufficiency of sources, but is refuted by several later arguments to merge following it. Given this, the consensus here is that this is not a suitable subject for a standalone article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prithviraj Productions

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not have sufficient references to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations/companies (WP:ORG). The references currently included are primarily routine announcements about the company's upcoming/past productions. Many of the references are also about the actor Prithviraj Sukumaran producing some movies. None of these references meet the necessary standards for notability. Akevsharma (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - noted company that distributed or produced noted films like K.G.F: Chapter 2, 83 (film), Kantara, 777 Charlie and others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability criteria for organizations, such as companies are outlined in WP:ORG. It says that the organization must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the organization. This is outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH.

Simply being the production company of some notable films does not necessarily make a company notable. In this case, the sources provided in the article do not meet the necessary level of our notability requirements. Akevsharma (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are about some movie reviews, its productions and announcements. There are no sources that help to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. 202.164.137.43 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. We require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Articles that rely entirely on interviews with people associated with the company fail the criteria. There's no source where the topic company is discussed in-depth and in detail. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~sockstrike - All the produced films have an wikipedia article and references. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valiaveetil, Whose sock are you, as asked by DaxServer [8] ? Akevsharma (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per consensus at DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 04:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going to give this a full two-relists following the nominator's block and reopening following DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company receives sustained coverage that extends beyond passing mentions, indicating its notability in the eyes of the media. Multiple independent and verifiable secondary sources contribute to it passing WP:NOTPROMO. News coverage on film production companies is inevitably associated with their productions, and it's indeed the success of films that makes a company noteworthy. Furthermore, the owner being a popular actor, any news will be intertwined with him too, much like Appian Way Productions and Leonardo DiCaprio. It meets the "Significant Coverage" requirement by satisfying WP:AUD with "at least one" regional (Mathrubhumi), statewide (Kerala Kaumudi), national (India Today), or international (Variety) source. It has ample "media coverage focusing on a product [movies]" under Examples of substantial coverage. It also fulfills the general notability guideline under alternate criteria. The company is also notable for their collaborations with Sony Pictures for its debut film, for producing the first science fiction film in Malayalam cinema, for producing the first virtual production in India, for distributing K.G.F: Chapter 2—the highest-grossing film in Kannada cinema, for distributing Kantara—the second highest-grossing film in Kannada cinema. It also produced and distributed seven films in 2022 alone, garnering attention from the government, prompting an IT investigation.--Gan Favourite (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments on DRV. This is a notable company and has really contributed in many notable movies. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prithviraj Sukumaran. I'm not seeing WP:NCORP-satisfying coverage, as the only one source presented thus far that included independent analysis of the company (The Week, and not very much even then). Further, most of the cited sources merely refer to the company as an extension of Sukumaran and his work--some even fail to capitalize "Productions". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rosguill. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The "keep" !vote by [[User:|]] is not supported by any sources. BookishReader uncovers a long list of sources, but these are basically skewered by JML1148. Since June 4, nothing new has been added, so I find that the "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based argument. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Farooq

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. All sources currently in the article are statistical databases. Other sources do exist [9] but are trivial. Last deletion nomination occurred when sport specific notability criteria existed. Since then they have been phased out. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Pakistan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Met WP:NBADMINTON under 2017's rules, which were a lot looser, however the subject no longer meets the criteria. Couldn't find any sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Is being a former World Senior Champion, European Senior Champion and World Master Games champion not enough to be considered notable? What kind of evaluation is that a former senior world champion is not notable at all? zoglophie 06:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zoglophie. A major figure in Pakistani and Austrian badminton history. World Champion, European Champion, national coach of Pakistan/Austria badminton team and what not: [10], [11], [12]. Another lazy nomination by the nominator (second time!). More coverage: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and much more if you do a thorough search. I'm sure we can find a lot of coverage about him in old Austrian newspapers (archives). BookishReader (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources come even close to being WP:SIGCOV. They (all 15 sources) are trivial mentions of the subject. Please stop your disruptive editing! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite opposite in fact. Let's leave this to the community to decide if this is enough. I'd happily add more if required. BookishReader (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: Calling it "disruptive editing" is going too far. They are being civil and constructive, and it's these sorts of comments that inflame long-winded, often uncivil debates. I would encourage you to strike that out. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alright, who wants to write a long list breaking down whether the sources are good or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an assessment of BookishReader's sources:

- Source 1 (in the nomination statement, not in BookishReader's comment) is too short.

- Sources 2, 3 and 4 are passing mentions.

- Source 5 is too short (a short paragraph about his performance, also mentioning his doubles partner, and a passing mention).

- Sources 6 and 7 are passing mentions.

- Source 8 is slightly too short for my liking, especially for a BLP (3 sentences, split up in a short article). I could see people having differing opinions on this.

- Source 9 is just statistics, effectively a passing mention.

- Sources 10, 11 and 12 are passing mentions.

- Source 13 (assuming it's this link) is too short.

- Source 14 is WP:ROUTINE.

- Sources 15 and 16 are passing mentions.

In my opinion, all of the sources fail WP:SIGCOV in one way or another, and the article's subject fail WP:NBADMINTON because of mainly being successful in senior divisions, which isn't covered by that criteria now. My delete !vote still stands unless someone contests my source assessment or provides sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BookishReader: Do you have any more sources? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add more if I find any. I'm unfamiliar with Austrian sources and their archives, so I'm unsure where to look. Coverage about him in Pakistan is limited, mostly mentioning him as a coach. Perhaps an editor from Austria could help us.

It seemed like a notable topic to me, so I tried my bit to save the page. Thanks for your analysis, by the way. BookishReader (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Open Door. ✗plicit 06:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of the World (Evanescence song)

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

Nominating for deletion, or blank & redirect if consensus considers it best, on the basis of WP:DEL-REASON#8. I researched the topic, and found that:

It fails the general notability guideline, as it lacks significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail.
It fails the WP:NSONG guideline, with sources only containing passing mention of the song in some album reviews and a few interviews where the artist mentions their inspiration for multiple album songs.
WP:WITHIN applies.

The information on the song is stated in the parent album article. Lapadite (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lapadite (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Open Door per lack of coverage. Little in the article is more than just passing mentions of the song, and the stuff that isn't is mainly interview quotes from the songwriter. No apparent notabillity. The Rock Band 3 part would be worth including at target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per QuietHere. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per QuietHere. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this song does not appear to have the coverage necessary to meet notability requirements for an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Should new sources appear that strengthen the notability case, the article can be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Mohan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, was unable to find any major awards that they've won. There might be better non-English sources, if they're found please ping me and I'll withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Malaysia. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not aware of any awards won, but awards are not a requirement as per WP:NACTOR. Someone who "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" are considered notable as per the policy. The subject has acted in at least two feature films, so has notability as per policy to the best of my knowledge. --Drajay1976 (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Drajay1976 he seems to have a minor roles in both of those movies. I went on IMDB and checked the reviews and they don't mention him or the character he played. I think this is a case of where they will be notable soon but not quite yet. Do you know if they're going to be in another movie with a larger part? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are news articles and social media posts about a lot of movies he has acted in, which are yet to be released as per google search result. Like 18plus, Achanoru Vazha Vachu, Vikaram etc. I don't know about the length of his role though. I have watched both Pathrosinte Padappukal and Heaven. His role was not insignificant in either film. Not the leading role or main supporting role, but both characters had significant screen presence. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drajay1976 he looks like he'll be notable in the future, are there any non-English sources that might be out there? I'm not trying to be a jerk, if we can fix this article then let's be proactive and fix it anything to prevent it from coming back to AfD. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my opinion is that he is already notable, as per the information given in the article. I don't think that the "significant roles" clause requires the actor to be mentioned in reviews. There are some more video interviews of the subject which can be added as references, but they don't have anything to say about the length of the roles! So, I don't think more references will help the article if the basic requirment is that his character should be mentioned in IMDB reviews. I think that as per policy the article should stay. With upcoming movies, it is likely that more information will get added. If it gets deleted, that is also OK! Someone else will anyhow write an article on this actor in a few years, I am sure. --Drajay1976 (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor. Had minor roles in both the movies listed on his filmography and therefore fails WP:NACTOR. Jupitus Smart 12:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 06:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Namrata Sawhney

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

PROD was contested, but no improvements could be made. As part of cleaning up the article, first in 2022 and then in 2023, I could not find significant coverage in sources. The PRODed article was undeleted at the request of a user who disclosed at the user talk that they work with the subject and handles her online presence, and has made edits to only this article on Wikipedia. Jay 💬 17:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Film. Jay 💬 17:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fly91

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

Airline has not yet started and appears to be a branding of Just Udo Aviation Private Limited. As there is currently no article for Just Udo it is unlikely that Fly91 is currently notable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has no aircraft, yet to get AOC. Not notable. Article written like promotion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The airline is set to start operations within just a few months and numerous reputed sources have already covered their entry into the aviation sector. Issues of the article can be changed but deleting provides no value. The article should be kept, as it provides valuable information regarding the airline. User:Yellow alligator 19:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Probably TOOSOON, could we draft until they actually get setup and flying? Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Diaries

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

Article about a YouTube documentary series, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA or WP:NWEB. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, which is sourced to the festival's own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it -- but the extent to which any award constitutes an article-clinching notability claim is determined entirely by the extent to which that award gets media coverage to establish that it's seen as a notable award in the first place.
And aside from that film festival, the only other source used here at all is IMDb, which is not a WP:GNG-building source either, and there's not a single reliable or GNG-worthy source being shown at all
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have real coverage about it in real media. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only sources are unreliable IMDB and 'Prison City Film Festival' which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Probably a UPE sock anyways, may warrant recreation down the road given its recency. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of smaller film festivals like that which aren't really big enough for there own article on Wikipedia, but some short films will start at those small festivals and snowball up to larger ones. It's not common and shouldn't be used as a basis for WP:NMEDIA but it is something to just keep in mind when evaluating short films. In my previous career I worked on a lot of short films so all of this is just my opinion and antidotal. It is absolutely not policy. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sungodtemple. I'm certain that this is a paid editor/sock as they made 10 minor edits so that they could publish directly to mainspace. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imdb isn't a valid source, rest is simply coverage in non-RS. I can't find mention of them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete Does not pass WP:NMEDIA, if it had been to more festivals and/or won larger awards at festival I could see it being notable or at least really really close. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://htschool.hindustantimes.com/editorsdesk/knowledge-vine/the-myth-of-rainbow-fish-a-hindu-legend-with-a-biblical-equivalent

[2] ttps://www.animalwised.com/what-is-the-story-of-the-rainbow-fish-1341.html

[3] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4RUsvmWGjM

[4] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tens

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]