Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 27

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Explicit (talk | contribs) at 12:25, 4 December 2023 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfie With Bajrangi (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 26 November 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Miss Virginia#Winners. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Willis (Miss Virginia)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG as a beauty pageant contestant. WP:BLP1E applies. Let'srun (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Barratt

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

Non-notable musician with no viable third-party coverage. Article is a mess of promotional content and puffery backed by dubious sourcing (own websites, IMDb, and Amazon). sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found no additional coverage. If The Beatles Complete On Ukulele gets kept at its AfD then redirect there instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Complete On Ukulele

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

Non-notable tribute album with no viable third-party coverage. Article has been unsourced since its 2009 creation. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found no additional coverage aside from the NY Post article linked in the prior AfD. Also worth linking the AfD on the lead artist behind this project, David Barratt. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though if the Barratt page gets kept, this should be redirected there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Bassi Kalan

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

There was no such siege; as the sources and even this article state, it was at most a skirmish. The sources do NOT call it even "battle of Bassi Kalan" and do not contain WP:SIGCOV; the event itself, by any name, fails WP:GNG. The relevant information belongs on Bassi Kalan, following the sources; a redirect from "Siege of Bassi Kalan" to Bassi Kalan is not necessary, as the topic is not known by this name. asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ without prejudice against further discussions of merging. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

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

I raised issues with this page in August at Talk:Nationality_of_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Justification_for_article, to which Michael Bednarek replied by essentially repeating the substance of the complaint: there is no source that actually covers an actual discussion about Mozart's nationality -- the article presents this as an academic debate when no such debate is acknowledged in the sources. As I note, there exists a manner in which WP can write about this topic, but no such substance exists in the current article, nor has any effort been made to add such substance since I raised the issue (only two edits since August), and I am doubtful any such rewrites would amount to enough substance to justify a standalone article from Mozart. Hence AfD. Ping: @Imran Khatun:, @Onetwothreeip:, ... but the only editor who has contributed more than 100 characters to the article's text is @Michael Bednarek:. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek (or someone else) would need to provide individual sources which show there is a dispute regarding Mozart's nationality. It's not enough to provide sources which contradict each other on his nationality. The sources themselves have to demonstrate that the question itself is relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article is Mozart's nationality, not a specific dispute as posited on the article's talk page. There have certainly been sources that discuss the question and its significance, eg Mozart and the Nazis: How the Third Reich abused a cultural icon. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be relevant to an article on Mozart's nationality. Content about how the Nazi government portrayed Mozart belongs in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture. The nationality article can only be justified by a dispute over his nationality. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you basing that assertion on? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject of the article is spelled out in the lead: "Editors of modern encyclopedias and other reference sources differ in how they assign a nationality to Mozart (if any) in light of conflicting criteria." and later, "evidence is available to support a variety of opinions about Mozart's nationality." Our German colleages at de:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Nationalität use the same rationale. The article presents those variety of opinions; whether musicologists dispute each other's assignations is neither here nor there. Those opinions find their way into popular culture (see e.g. Unsere Besten, Google Mozart Deutscher oder Österreicher) and presenting them is a legitimate subject. Placing this material in the the main Mozart article would rob it (justifiably) of the historical context and be undue there because it hasn't anything to do with WAM as a composer. In a reduced form, it would almost certainly invite unhelpful edits and create perennial instability there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only to keep these tedious explanations out of the main article. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that the article is poor and that no one has cleaned it up is no justification for deleting it. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Furius (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case people skip over my original, more detailed post of objections on the article's Talk Page which I linked, I will repost it here. None of what I wrote above is a relevant argument, just a nondescript summary.

As far as I can tell, this article seems to be entirely WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to explain or answer the question of nationality as applied to Mozart. It is not actually about the subject of the nationality of Mozart as it actually exists. An example of this would be if notable figure A says mozart is X, notable figure B says Mozart is Y, and they get into a poopstorm over it that is covered by notable source C. There are notable mentions of the politicization of Mozart's nationality -- for example, in a 2013 WP discussion User:DoctorJoeE links to a BBC story that quotes the Austrian embassy on this subject. This story is cited in the article currently, yet, bizarrely, it is done so for historical facts and not for modern politics. (Neither the ambassador nor the embassy spokesperson are specialist historians.)

This article is not justifiable in its current state. It either needs to be entirely about Mozart's nationality as a subject under significant discussion -- not simply a amalgamation of isolated blurbs from historians. Or else its scope should be expanded into a larger discussion of either the historiography for declaring the nationality of pre-Modern figures, or else the modern politics behind claiming nationalities for historical figures. Failing such change (or other suggestions you may have), I'd recommend deletion in a month or so. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

...

All the encyclopedias in the article seem to decide each edition on one thing or another. The only place in this entire article that we mention sources which actually ponder over the issue of Mozart's nationality is the final paragraph, which cites all of two scholars. From this article it seems to me that, for this eminently important historical figure who has been extensively written about from every perspective, the only writers who are devoting such extensive coverage to debate his nationality are us. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: to "ponder over the issue of Mozart's nationality" means to write much more than something like "The young German did this" or "The Austrian prodigy did that". It means to dedicate, by my minimal standards, at least one full sentence to the historical-biographical matter of national identity as claimed by the man himself, family, or any politician, historian, etc. to follow.

The reason I'm saying to delete the article rather than to merge it is because the only bits of the article that aren't SYNTH (inventing a debate or staked claim in sources which do no such thing) is as far as I can tell a single paragraph. The throwaway quotes of politicians may be worthwhile if there's further research on whether this actually matters, but in such context it is not an actual substantive debate over Mozart's nationality, but rather perhaps a notable political macguffin of Austria–Germany relations, and worth mentioning as part of Mozart's cultural influence.

Central to the problem is that the article from the beginning presents Mozart's nationality as some kind of legitimate discussion that real people actually have. Read the article and count the number of people who are actually discussing it. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes 32 and 33 (the newspaper articles) both raise the issue of Mozart's nationality, don't they? It's also discussed in this book as a matter of controversy in modern times; this book also devotes a paragraph to unpacking the issue. There is material for an article on this topic; the fact that this article uses it very badly is not a justification for deletion. 18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Furius (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as noted above, Mozart and the Nazis: How the Third Reich abused a cultural icon does this in detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"... I believe I am capable of bringing honor to any court—and if Germany, my beloved Fatherland, of which, as you know, I am proud, will not take me up—well, let France or England, in God's name become the richer by another talented German—and that to the disgrace of the German nation!"
Mozart himself describes himself as German here. this article is a great collection of sources, which all show imput for a debate or at least question, that arises in modern times with Mozart being born in a "country" no longer existing, into a collection of states which later form modern Germany for the most part, into the German culture and language sphere. we think in terms of nations today and all people of past ages are part of some national lineage. Mozart may be of two, but that should always be an information avaiable. Wikipedia is about people accumulating data for others to read. this article is all about that. deleting it would be against Wikipedia´s basic idea. BauhausFan89 (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: for the reasons above. BauhausFan89 (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SamuelRiv's argument above. This is an OR discussion of a question that interests the editor rather than an encyclopedic treatment of an actually existing debate which RS have treated as notable. I'm mystified that other editors support keeping this. Llajwa (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep|re-write Delete WP:TNT, per SamuelRiv: "There are notable mentions of the politicization of Mozart's nationality -- for example, in a 2013 WP discussion User:DoctorJoeE links to a BBC story that quotes the Austrian embassy on this subject." Being a new editor, my opinion might matter little in this discussion; however, I believe other editors may be hesitant to delete or merge this article because it is well-composed in terms of sourcing, graphical content, etc. But none of those reasons are significant to overcoming WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH claims for this article. There are isolated media references to a significance in Austria-Germany relations, and per Furius "There is material for an article on this topic; the fact that this article uses it very badly is not a justification for deletion." I disagree with keeping the article, as too much of the work is OR. But I think it should be blown up and re-written to discuss historical debate over Mozart's nationality. 22 November 2023It might be preferable if @Michael Bednarek: used a different place to backup the good original synthesis they have performed in writing this article, and instead the article re-written under WP:CLEANUP to include only such information and sources that shows there is current dispute among notable sources over Mozart's nationality, and none of the lengthy background/historical information. Then, it would be much easier to determine the amount of WP eligible content and thus determine if the article is worthy of standalone support, merging, or even deletion. That sounds like a lot of effort, though. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree - the whole point, which the article rather fails to make sufficiently clear, is that there is no "current dispute" of any significance, but there used to be one, largely motivated by political reasons. You are suggesting throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear that no one wants this in the main article on Mozart. But it also seems clear that no one is particularly excited about the article as it stands, and there are major WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns. Sure, deletion isn't cleanup, but would WP:TNT without prejudice to recreation be a useful solution in this case?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so strongly do the Austrians guard the composer as one of their own that when Mozart was nominated in 2003 as one of the greatest Germans of all time in a competition organised by the German television station ZDF, the Austrian ambassador to Germany, Christian Prosl [de], protested vigourously about his inclusion

— Levi, Erik (2011). Mozart and the Nazis: How the Third Reich Abused a Cultural Icon. Yale University Press. p. 24. ISBN 9780300165814.

Walter and Nettl responded to Nazi propaganda that situated the Austrian Mozart as a symbol of German purity and greatness. […] In the face of such comments, Walter reaffirmed Mozart's Austrian (rather than German) identity […] refuting the Germans' claims that Mozart was German

— Lynch, Christopher (2020). "The Metropolitan Opera House and the 'War of Ideologies'". In Potter, Pamela M.; Baade, Christina; Marvin, Roberta Montemorra (eds.). Music in World War II: Coping with Wartime in Europe and the United States. Indiana University Press. pp. 119–120. ISBN 9780253050274.

Salzburg was not part of Austria at the time, and although Mozart spent most of his mature career in Vienna, he was really a German composer, much as Beethoven, also resident in Vienna, was a German composer. So should the Austrians celebrate Mozart as an Austrian?

— Beller, Steven (2006). A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge Concise Histories. Cambridge University Press. p. 316. ISBN 9780521478861.
  • … yes, this does seem to have been something that the world has had a bit of a debate over, last century, documented in university press books. The major problem with the article seems to be that it entirely ignores World War 2. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three options:
    • Move to What nationality would someone born in Salzburg in 1756 be?, because this is primarily an essay, not an encyclopedia article;
    • Merge selectively to main Mozart article, as most of the article does not discuss Mozart and is a discussion of the politico-cultural situation in Central Europe in the mid-18th century;
    • or Cut everything except the "Scholarly practice" section, which is the only significant part of the article which is directly relevant to the title. This is my preferred option. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, much better than any of these, leave it as it is. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, better even than that, write about the subject, which was a matter of propaganda and debate in World War 2. It's not that there isn't a subject to write about here, it's that editors have spent more time on arguing the case directly than looking for documentation about the time when the world argued the case. Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion and points made by Johnbod, Michael Bednarick, and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without objection to a Delete, a one paragraph summary with refs from Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Scholarly practice section into the main article. There does not seem to be enough material here to justify a stand alone article, this is an unneeded CFORK fleshed out with historiographic trivia and OR (eg: "The prestigious German music encyclopedia Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart lists no nationality, but this follows the policy it applies to all composers.", "Sources have sometimes changed their practice over time. The Grove dictionary did not always call Mozart "Austrian"; the designation appears to have been added with the first edition of the "New Grove" in 1980."). Merging anything more than a one paragraph summary is UNDUE (and even this is generous).  // Timothy :: talk  15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion has become more complicated than it was a week ago. Instead of editors advocating Keep and Delete, we now have those arguing that a Merge would be the best solution. So, I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can arrive at a rough consensus rather than closing this discussion as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus because I doubt we will get much more clarity with further relistings. There are editors who want to straight out Keep this article but others who want a Split or Merge. Those two options can be dealt with as editorial decisions with the article and discussions on the article talk page and do not need to occur in the forum of AFD. I encourage you all to pursue shaping this into the article you think is appropriate for the project. But there is enough different opinions and I think initiating a discussion first is the least jarring way for this process to move forward. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoxianzu

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

Bad WP:POVFORK of Koreans in China.

The topic of this article (ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality) has been the primary topic of the article Koreans in China since 2006 (initial version, October 2023 version). In October, however, User:Strategicasian inexplicably changed the introduction of the latter article to only "non-Chinese nationalities such as South Korean and North Korean people", the complete opposite of the article's previous main focus, and created this new article.

This new article, despite being titled "Chaoxianzu", the Korean ethnicity in China, is almost entirely an original research assay on political issues surrounding the identity of Chaoxianzu and their emigration to South Korea. It cites 25 sources currently – I've checked all accessible ones, and the vast majority of them are fake citations that do not support the preceding text. (It is also immediately obvious, from the way citations are added here, that they are fake.) The only parts that are actually supported, such as the population in South Korea, are also discussed in the main "Koreans in China" article and it makes little sense to duplicate them there.

In the future, the topic of Koreans in China could still benefit from a split between articles on Korean Chinese citizens (Chaoxianzu) and recent South Korean arrivals in China. However it is now being split in the worst possible way: we are getting a extremely low-quality new article on Chaoxianzu, and another article that claims to be about non-Chinese citizens, but still mainly deals with the chaoxianzu. Splitting content about South Koreans from the main article would be a much better solution. Esiymbro (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Chaoxianzu in Korea. The modifications made to the Wikipedia articles concerning the Korean community in China stem from a necessity to more accurately represent the diverse experiences and identities of Koreans in this region. It seems like you are ignoring the fact that in China, there are not only Chaoxianzu but also South Koreans and North Koreans. Please do not overlook them. The initial article, "Koreans in China," primarily addressed ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality, known officially as Chaoxianzu (朝鲜族). The suggestion to delete this page seems to conflict with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive information and raises concerns regarding neutrality. As a contributor, I strongly oppose this deletion. CONSTRUCTING CHAOXIANZU IDENTITY Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University Location: Home > Chinese Ethnic Groups > Korean Ethnic Groups > History National Ethnic Affairs Commission of the People's Republic of China I want to emphasize that the data and content I have provided are not products of independent research but are derived from verified and academically recognized sources. The assertion that my contributions are based on independent studies is inaccurate. These sources are well-studied and corroborated. If additional data are required, I am more than willing to provide it. Considering the term "Chaoxianzu" is an established English name in Northeast Asian academic and political discourse, the deletion of this article seems unjustified. "Chaoxianzu" is a globally recognized official name and is crucial in establishing and preserving the identity of Korean-Chinese citizens with Chinese nationality.
Over time, it became evident that the experiences of South Korean and North Korean nationals in China were significantly different, necessitating a more distinct focus. This observation led to the reorientation of the "Koreans in China" article to more prominently include these groups.
The creation of the new article titled "Chaoxianzu" was intended to offer a specific platform for discussing the distinct aspects of Korean ethnicity in China, separate from the broader context of all Koreans in China. This distinction allows for a more detailed exploration of the Chaoxianzu, including their political issues and migration patterns to South Korea. The aim was not to undermine the significance of Chaoxianzu but to grant it a unique and separate focus.
In conclusion, the adjustments made to the Wikipedia articles were driven by the desire to provide more defined and detailed coverage of the various Korean communities in China. While challenges concerning the accuracy of content and reliability of sources have been noted, these can be effectively addressed through collaborative editing and strict adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore, I firmly oppose the deletion of these articles and commit to actively contributing additional data to enhance their quality and comprehensiveness. Strategicasian (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep but I do agree that the article has a lot of significant issues and think the scope of the Koreans in China could be realigned. I've also been concerned with the quality of the article.
My thoughts:
  • Chaoxianzu are an international and distinct group that I think deserve their own article.
  • Koreans in China are a broader category that includes Chaoxianzu, albeit not entirely, as Chaoxianzu are international.
Given the second point, I think the scope of Koreans in China could be Chaoxianzu (specifically in China, maybe mention the Chaoxianzu diaspora), as well as the South and North Korean diasporas in China. The article would then WP:SUMMARY-style mention Chaoxianzu (i.e. a few dense paragraphs with key information only, leaving the rest for the full article), with a prominent Template:Main article that makes it clear the rest of the info can be found on the other article.
Given the issues with article quality, I could see an argument for delete unless someone is willing to significantly improve the issues addressed. I'm on the fence about it. With respect @Strategicasian, I think there needs to be a stronger effort to keep closer to Wikipedia guidelines; you edit WP:BOLD-ly, but I think you're too bold. The information in it I think is not necessarily false or unhelpful, but it has systemic issues that may take ages to organically address. It'd be great if you can do the rewrite; you would need to do a careful read through of the Wikipedia style guides (reading Wikipedia:Good Article criteria is an ok place to start; you don't need to promote to GA, but just follow the principles in the article), and ask for feedback from more experienced users. I wish I could provide more focused feedback, but I have a lot on my plate lately. toobigtokale (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on the "Chaoxianzu" article. I appreciate your recognition of the distinctiveness of the Chaoxianzu as an international group and the importance of having a dedicated article for them. Your suggestion to realign the scope of the "Koreans in China" article to include not just the Chaoxianzu but also the South Korean and North Korean diasporas in China is insightful. As you can see from sources like "Study on the Adjustment Process of Chaoxianzu during Cross-Cultural Transition in South Korea," "A Taste of South Korea in Shanghai, China's Koreatown," and "Shanghai Municipal People's Government - Site of the Korean Government in Exile, a Symbol of a Long-Standing Friendship," there is a clear distinction between Koreans in China and Chaoxianzu in Korea. Study on the Adjustment Process of Chaoxianzu during CrossCultural Transition in South Korea A taste of South Korea in Shanghai, China's Koreatown Shanghai Municipal People's Government - Site of the Korean government in exile a symbol of a long-standing friendship - Since the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between China and South Korea three decades ago, six South Korean presidents have visited the Site of the Korean Provisional Government at 306 Madang Road in Huangpu District. The statistics of overseas Koreans include South Koreans who are temporarily staying in China. Therefore, when the President of South Korea visits and stays in China, technically, they would be counted among 'Koreans in China.' However, it's nonsensical to include the South Korean President in the statistics for Chaoxianzu. Therefore, there is a need for clear distinction between the "Chaoxianzu" page and the "Koreans in China" page. This is not an ethnic distinction but an objective differentiation based on nationality.
This approach, which integrates a WP:SUMMARY-style mention of the Chaoxianzu with a clear redirection to the main article, seems like a balanced way to address the complexities of these communities.
I understand your concerns regarding the quality of the article and agree that adherence to Wikipedia guidelines is paramount. Your observation about the systemic issues in the article is well-received. I am willing to undertake the necessary improvements and commit to a thorough review and rewrite of the content in compliance with Wikipedia's style guides. I appreciate your suggestion to consult the Wikipedia:Good Article criteria and other relevant guidelines to ensure the article meets the necessary standards. Moving forward, I will endeavor to strike a more careful balance, ensuring that my contributions are not only bold but also align with Wikipedia's best practices. Strategicasian (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the expectation that the article will be improved and the main article will adequately WP:SUMMARIZE as proposed above. The topic is distinct and article-worthy to me, but I also echo that it needs work. Remsense留 01:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to GoodTimes Entertainment. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse Trolls Forest of Fun and Wonder

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

For broadly the same reason as the similar Treehouse Trolls Birthday Day article was deleted recently, for failing WP:NFILM. I observe the prod contest rationale, but don't accept a reason to keep on the basis of it being someone's acting debut. I considered whether a redirect could be implemented, but could not determine a suitable target. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it would be better to Delete or Redirect the article (or some other resolution).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ (narrowly, almost no consensus, but they're largely the same result anyways). Daniel (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity Search Records

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

Article fails WP:NCORP and it is significantly a prominence building attempt through public relations effort, thus WP:TNT is relevant. 75.5% of authorship can be attributable to blocked sockmaster MusicLover650's sock Earflaps, and WP:SPAsMgretchh Capobw49, Carolinerubin and an IP that links to the same geographical area as the company, 2601:1C2:700:D0E0:7844:583D:4AB7:80AC Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: had AUD meeting coverage in the book Shooting Star: The Definitive Story of Elliott Smith, and a bunch of GNG-qualifying coverage in Portland news. Mach61 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There must to be at least one regional or national coverage per WP:AUD to satisfy NORG, but should be multiple. "Portland news" is local. Graywalls (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how there isn't a suitable merge target for this page, I think the bare minimum in meeting AUD, and very easily meeting GNG should be enough to justify keeping the article. Mach61 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you speaking of that meets independent significant coverage in broadly circulated media? Please link them. Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oregonian (Newsbank paywall) Vortex magazine. That's three sources with significant coverage of the label, including the book. Mach61 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with @Graywalls and the arguments made in support of deletion. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Above editors have shown the article likely passes the GNG and it meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important labels (which is no suprise, given that it was once Elliott Smith's label); a NCORP pass isn't required here, so that's plenty. The COI editing has no impact on the notability argument, and if the nice tidy discography table is courtesy of affiliated persons...we should be so lucky as to have such COI editing. Chubbles (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than bands and ensembles, there's nothing in notability guidelines suggesting N:MUSIC is relevant for music related groups. Record labels are a company whose products just happen to be music related. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Rayagada

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

No substantial third-party sourcing found to support the notability of the page per WP:ORG. Sohom (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myriam Joire (2 nomination)

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray nanochemistry

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

No evidence of notability, only sources from a single author. Also this is a reinvention of established radiation effects of x-rays which have been known for decades going back to at least radiation sickness following the second world war. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, thanks. SFC9394 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Brookings Institution. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Middle East Policy

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

Delete or merge into its parent Brookings Institution. Nothing inherently independently notable about the center that would justify a stand-alone article. The non-SPS sourcing are just 2 copy-pastes of criticism. Longhornsg (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The article does need a rewrite, but there doesn't seem to be consensus that it is bad enough to warrant WP:TNT or re-draftification. The additional sources provided by DCsansei seem to be enough to answer the GNG concerns. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuima Nakazato

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

Article was moved to draft as a result of the previous AfD (that I started), still, the references do not show that this article meets WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG most are just trivial mentions of the subject, most are not that reliable or such. Seawolf35 T--C 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this was only recently moved from draft-space, do not want to close as soft delete. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I voted keep last time, with about four sources in my last comment. Same applies here I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or re-drafitify. Sorry, but immediately moving a page back to mainspace [3], and then adding one ref (where the subject isn't even mentioned) is just not good enough.-KH-1 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitely needs improving but the subject is clearly notable. I'm a bit tired of editors suggesting moving clearly notable articles to drafts rather than helping to improve them. This article also has coverage from NHK [4] which I quickly found - a full 50 minutes on the national TV network in 2011. That's in addition to coverage of a major award in the Japan Times all the way back in 2007 [5]. It appears there's offline coverage from the Kyoto Costume Institute's very reputable journal. Features in collections at the Mori Art Museum and MoMu Antwerp. There's almost certainly more (I searched for about 5 mins) but it quite obviously is far beyond the minimum threshold of the general notability guideline. If editors feel that the article as it stands is not worth keeping, I would not be opposed to reducing it to a few lines and providing these sources as notability for future expansion (which I may even be interested in) DCsansei (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what I have listed above, his latest collection at the Paris Fashion Show has significant coverage from Wired [6], SCMP [7], Dscene [8], among others. Coverage in NorieM (could be viewed as commercial since they do both magazine and sell, but I think relatively reliable in fashion) [9] and a feature in the national newspaper, Asahi Shinbun [10]. DCsansei (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I didn't have access to offline source provided by Grandmere Eugene. (non-admin closure)‎ 331dot (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Miquon School

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. It largely consisted of promotional text since 2018(most of which I removed). It's been marked as needing sources since 2011. My search could find nothing other than profile listings of the school or other promotional pieces. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Pennsylvania. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In general, we do not keep articles about elementary schools, and usually redirect to the local district. This topic may be the exception, being the subject of multiple articles in secondary, independent, reliable sources. I've left 14 sources on the article's talk page from newspapers.com. I have neither exhausted the sources on newspapers.com nor yet checked Proquest, but sourcing about the school's early and ongoing commitment to progressive education may qualify it for WP:GNG. (WP:ORG exempts non-profit educational institutions: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams, and this school seems to meet WP:GNG) — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Maria Paone

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

Not seeing enough reliable sources for this fellow. Only one local source covers him directly, and the small amount of articles he's written do not seem enough to meet WP:NPROF. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina)

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry. Not enough has changed since then to establish this match-up as a notable rivalry. Speedy was declined. funplussmart (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Missouri, and South Carolina. funplussmart (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I voted to delete back in 2014, and I still think that was the right outcome. The programs have played several more games since 2014, but the new "hook" in trying to establish notability is that "both school campuses are located in cities named Columbia". While this tidbit apparently led the mayors to create a cup, the existence of a cup doesn't necessarily make it notable. My searches turned up passing references to the "cup" in game coverage (e.g., here, here, here, here) but did not find deep coverage of a rivalry. Also, some question whether this is even a rivalry. See here ("Is this a rivalry or not? ... Despite being division foes, the Gamecocks and Tigers have no geographical reason to be bitter rivals, but the powers that be have been trying to make it happen with the 'Mayor's Cup,'"). Finally, the lack of significant history (only two games were played prior to 2012) and the absence of marquee matchups (zero top 10 matchups and only one where both were ranked at all) also weigh against a finding of stand-alone notability. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This rivalry has had some occasional passing coverage over the years, but there just isn't enough WP:SIGCOV here. User:Let'srun 03:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my !vote here. Not enough independent coverage for this one to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are either non-independent or routine passing mentions. No in depth coverage of the two teams as rivals largely because no rivalry exists. Two schools being in the same conference and having a traveling trophy does not automatically make a series a notable rivalry. Frank Anchor 13:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage by national media mentioning the Mayor's Cup here here, by the teams here here, talk about the rivalry from 2017 from 2019 from 2019 from 2023. Esb5415 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Esb5415, are those sources that are independent of the schools and their athletic programs? If so, do they give the rivalry or trophy more than a couple sentences mention? Routine or non-independent coverage doesn't count. funplussmart (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ope, good point. The last four sources from my previous response are independent of the schools and athletic programs. In 2017, the Post and Courier has half an article on the Mayor's cup trophy and what it represents. In 2019, Rock M Nation (a news website with beat writers) talks about how South Carolina is more of a rival than Arkansas. In 2019, a site talks about the rivalry - I'm not too familiar with the site. In 2023, the Missouri Rivals site makes a case for South Carolina to be a permanent rival for Missouri.
      Some others: in 2018, The State interviewed the starting quarterback for Missouri where he revers to this as a rivalry (I see someone else say that Wil Muschamp isn't an independent source, which would lead to the conclusion this isn't independent either. I don't understand, they aren't the university - could someone explain how that is/link to consensus or policy?). In 2018, the Fulton Sun (newspaper) talks about how the rivalry is growing. In 2022, the Columbia Daily Tribune ran a piece with the headline "Mizzou has its main SEC rival". In 2020, the Post and Courier ran a piece that opened with "Rivalry wasn’t created by a hastily made trophy. Rivalry is created by great, classic games. In that sense, South Carolina-Missouri has become one. Nothing like the grudge matches the Gamecocks annually hold with Clemson (and to an extent, Georgia), but a rivalry." Esb5415 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Some more sources:
      In 2019, Saturday Down South reported Missouri players called the rivalry a "'grown man' rivalry" (may not be independent since it's players). In 2023, the Post and Courier wrote another article on the history of "the SEC’s weirdest rivalry", detailing the 2022, 2018, 2023, and 2005 games. In 2022, SI talks about how the Missouri game could be considered a bellwether for South Carolina's seasons. Esb5415 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Another one, cited in the lead: Columbia Missourian in 2022 Buffaloe wants Mayor's Cup to stay in Missouri Esb5415 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two make no mention of the teams being rivals and only have a passing mention of the trophy Red XN, the next two are non-independent and therefore can not contribute to WP:GNG (and even if that wasn't the case, both are also passing mentions in routine pre-game coverage) Red XN. The Post and Courier source's only mention of a rivalry come from Wil Muschamp, an employee of South Carolina, so non-independent Red XN. The last three are Missouri fan blogs Red XN. Definitely not enough here for a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 13:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Power Mizzou (an affiliate of Rivals.com) and Rock M Nation (an affiliate of SB Nation) are not fan blogs, they're legit news sites dedicated to covering Missouri athletics.
SB Nation is a sports blogging network and not remotely close to a legit news site. Maybe "fan blog" wasn't the best of words but it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outlet. I'll give you the Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from Rivals,, but looking into that reference further, it makes the case for south carolina as one potential option of a permanent rivalry if the SEC were to adopt a 3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not), but gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they should. Still a hard no from me. Frank Anchor 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from Rivals Power Mizzou is Rivals, Rock M Nation is SB Nation. it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outlet SB Nation is a regular media outlet, I don't see how it wouldn't pass WP:NEWSORG. 3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not) Only for 2024 (source), but that isn't relevant - it is a source talking about the rivalry. gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they should I don't read the article that way, but I understand why you say that. I read the article as establishing what "normally" makes rivalries, saying Missouri - South Carolina doesn't have those "traditional ingredients", but still making the case as to a rivalry through "competitive games", "position in the division", and "city pride". Esb5415 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain how an employee (or athlete) is non-independent? They aren't paid to say what is/isn't a rivalry - they're being interviewed by a journalist, so I'm confused as to how that isn't independent. Esb5415 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are paid by the university making them directly affiliated with the university and therefore can not be independent. Frank Anchor 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Post and Courier source's only mention of a rivalry come from Wil Muschamp, an employee of South Carolina, so non-independent
This is not true; the trophy is featured in in almost the entire article in editorial voice: The winner also gets the cup, the “Mayor’s Cup” that was created in 2012, the year Missouri joined the SEC. Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin thought it was a neat idea to battle for something, since the two colleges are each located in Columbia.
A reliable independent newspaper source getting some color quotes and background information from the mayor of the city is not the same as "non-independent" coverage. This is clearly a full article independent coverage of the trophy.
PK-WIKI (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not mentioning the rivalry. It's mentioning that a trophy exists (having a traveling trophy does not automatically make a series a notable rivalry). And it's mentioning that one mayor thinks its neat that two cities have the same name. Frank Anchor 17:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is non-independent coverage when the mayor of the city is also the person who purchased the trophy, making him directly involved. Frank Anchor 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rivalry and trophy are covered in depth in editorial voice in the articles. Any argument that these don't count because they got quotes from the mayor of Columbia and they are therefor not "independent coverage" is ridiculous; they're full newspaper articles written about the rivalry that include quotes from an elected official who contributed to the rivalry by creating the trophy. That's still independent coverage.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, normally a mayor of a city is not directly affiliated with either university. However, the article explains Columbia, SC Stephen Benjamin purchased the trophy to be passed around, making him directly involved in the rivalry and not independent. Even if that wasn't the case, the extent of the his input is “It seemed to be a perfect time to start a new rivalry, and I called the [Columbia, MO] mayor and he told us it was pretty cool, so it’s something fun,” Benjamin said. Mayors of cities don't start rivalries, and the existence of a cup or the idea of a rivalry being cool or fun do not make it such. Frank Anchor 17:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually mayors of cities do start rivalries, as established by the significant coverage in reliable sources of these two mayors creating a traveling rivalry trophy and awarding it to the winner of the game.
The article's title is Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina), not "... rivalry". Tweak the lead if you insist the game is not a "rivalry", but the traveling trophy between the teams meets GNG. The second article, btw, directly states in editorial voice in the headline that "Mizzou has its main SEC rival" so I would be hard pressed not to call this a rivalry.
PK-WIKI (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like No consensus right now. As an aside, by its title, it seems like the subject of the article should be the trophy or the games played that resulted in awarding of the trophy. If it is actually about a rivalry, then if the article is Kept, perhaps a rename is in order.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per PK-WIKI. glman (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the references provided are either routine passing mentions or heavily based on persons directly involved in the rivalry (university employees or athletes, the mayor who purchased the trophy, etc). Also one editorial piece referring to South Carolina as Missouri's "main SEC rival" doesn't make it so. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this discounting of significant coverage in reliable independent sources based on their diligent reporting.
    If the New York Times were to write about a rivalry by getting quotes from the school's athletic director, head coach, star quarterback, cheerleading captain, alumni-club president, and trophy designer all saying that this is their most important and historic rivalry... that only ADDS TO the significance of the rivalry.
    The newspaper articles are WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, full stop. This isn't the mayor's personal blog, it's a third party independently-published newspaper story about a rivalry that gets quotes from the people involved. The journalists all write about the rivalry too using editorial voice, not just quotes.
    PK-WIKI (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with Cbl62 this seems manufactured for promo purposes. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines. Sources only show routine mill booster coverage.  // Timothy :: talk  22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I agree that the sources do not meet GNG, and support Frank Anchor's comment at 13:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC). Daniel (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Soom Shale. While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article several editors mention a selective Merge as an ATD so I'm closing with that option. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keurbosia

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

Species name is not formally published, and therefore fails the "validly published criterion" of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There is a lack of coverage otherwise that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES appears to be a sufficient criterion, but not a necessary one, to keep a species. While not having its name formally published, Keurbosia has been discussed in research articles (outside of the Alan Male reconstruction), with well-referenced information about the specimen. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that this is a nomen nudum would, in my opinion, not necessarily mean that we can't have an article, if there was sufficient coverage; Australopithecus prometheus is a nomen nudum and certainly worthy of an article. (We would probably have to lose the taxobox, at any rate) However, I can't see the coverage here. Of the references given, the first does not even mention the term; the second [11] is a peculiar case of "featured passing mention" - they could have used an eggplant for the same purpose; the third is a pretty illustration, but nothing more. I can't access the fourth, but based on its sparse use in the article I assume that it also merely consists of an illustration. That's not enough, and the automatic notability of a validly described taxon isn't there to offset the lack of coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference mentions the specimen otherwise referred to as Keurbosia, although not by that name (page 5, section Enigmatics), describing it in a moderate amount of detail but adding that [t]his fossil awaits a full description. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting & partial merge, as suggested above, seems sensible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPECIESOUTCOMES only applies to validly published names, and Keurbosia lacks SIGCOV as well. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relevant material merged at Soom Shale. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge or if this article should be straight out Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge just as Chaotic Enby has already done. Can be split out in the future from Soom Shale if the name is validly published. Fritzmann (message me) 01:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guarantee that "Kerbousia" will be the name used in any future publication. I would hope that a future publication would mention that "Kerbousia" was a word that been previously applied to these fossils, but even if Kerbousia is mentioned in that publication, an editor creating an article under a different name might not check for a Kerbousia redirect and retarget it to the new name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Romone

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find any in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your life its back (Venezuelan Movie)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a not-yet-released film, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because they've entered the production pipeline -- the minimum notability bar for most films is that they've been released, and films are supposed to get articles in advance of release only if they can be sourced to a substantial volume of production coverage, such that even if they collapsed and never came out at all they'd still likely be permanently notable anyway (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films). But this just cites a tiny smattering of production coverage, nowhere near enough to confer permanent notability this far in advance of release.
In addition, the page's title is completely unverified in any sources at all, and appears to be an original research attempt at inventing an English title for a film that doesn't have any known English title yet -- but "we don't even know what title the page should actually be at yet" is another reason why this would be too soon. ("Come Back to Life" would be a more appropriately idiomatic translation of the film's native-language title, but that's not properly verified as the English-title of this film either — remember that foreign-language films' English titles are not always literal translations of their original-language titles, so we can't just assume that its English title will necessarily be "Come Back to Life" just because its Spanish title is slated to be "Vuelve a la vida", and have to wait until a reliable source verifies that before we can title an article about it that way.) The film also has no article at all on the Spanish Wikipedia yet, even though it can hardly be more notable to the English-speaking world than it is in its own country. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good afteernoon
Thanks for your review alwways its good learn in this plataform.
The article have four citation from the principal newspaper of Venezuela. About the titlee its translated as that in the official instagram account of the movie. in addition of that the film have noticed for be development by the directors of " Papita, Mani, Toston" The most sucess Venezuelan movie in recent years. About the spanish article, its in construction, some others native languaje production dont have articles in wikipedia in spanish. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caracas, Te Quiero Que Jode and Papita, maní, tostón are previous work of hueck directors.
@Bearcat GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has three citations from newspapers — the fourth is an IMDB-like directory, not a newspaper — and three citations from newspapers is not enough to make a film notable while it's still only in the production pipeline. Films in the production pipeline can collapse and fail to ever get released at all, so you need a lot of production coverage, not just three hits, to make a film notable in advance of release — as in so much production coverage that even if the film did collapse, its failure would be permanently notable in its own right. Normally, films are not notable at all until we can source a firm premiere date, and even after the premiere some films can still fail to pass our inclusion criteria at all: films still just don't always get the necessary depth of coverage at all, so they simply aren't exempted from having to have good sourcing just because they've been released.
And what other films the directors made is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited, and you've also failed to address the problem with the page title at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:NFILM, since there are sources about its principal photography, it has already been screened at the Guadalajara Film Festival and outher sources allow the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST: [12][13][14][15].
That said, the article is in poor shape and could really use improvement. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some improvements to the article. There probably are going to be even more sources once the film is screened to the public, but the current coverage should warrant it being kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the above. The sources are minimal from a WP:NFF perspective. Not enough that I'd recommend creating an article, but not so sparse that I'd recommend deletion in the face of an upcoming scheduled release. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opportunity to evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Farley-Moore

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

Fails WP:NBIO, no reliable independent sources which give significant attention to him. Sources in article are not independent (e.g. this one and/or don't mention him (e.g. this or this). Fram (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elm City rivalry

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

This doesn't appear to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Connecticut. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much time to search now, but The Southern News has an article on it that notes that "One of the best rivalries in the NE10 Conference is between Southern and the University of New Haven, the Elm City rivalry". BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Southern News and The Charger Bulletin are the student-run newspapers at Southern Connecticut University and the University of New Haven. They are therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and get little or no weight in assessing whether the topic passes WP:GNG. In this case both schools compete in Division II, which is the third tier of college football below FBS and FCS. Moreover, neither program has a history of particular prominence even at the Division II or College Division levels. Purported rivalries between such lower-level programs with no real history of prominence are not necessarily notable. See WP:NRIVALRY ("Sports rivalries are not presumed notable.") My searches turned up some coverage of the basketball series, but a quick review didn't turn up anything of real depth about a football rivalry, just a couple brief passages. See this and this. If others come up with more/better coverage, I'll keep an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lack of actually in-depth, independent coverage as either a series of games (the actual topic of the article) or an alleged "rivalry". It's clear that the game series exists, but it is not an independently notable subject and should just be covered in brief at the articles on the teams or at the indistitutional articles under sections about sports/atheletics departments. The first source in the article is in-depth, but is not independent; the second is irrelevant to the subject (just a source for a particular date, and mentions only one team/institution and no "rivalry"). The third source, above, lacks depth and just mentions the "rivalry" then gives brief coverage of a specific game, while being dominated by notices of upcoming and unrelated events.
    As laid out in detail at User:SMcCandlish/Rivalry game mess, this is yet another case where the notion of rivalry game (an organized series of matches between two teams with a degree of geographical proximity, often but not always with a trophy and often but not always with a distinct name, sometimes with "Rivalry" in it) has been sorely confused with that of sport[s] rivalry (a sports subculture of antagonism between the fandoms of two teams). This is reparable with a bunch of article renaming and recategorization to account for the ambiguity (which has arisen because rivalry game is often reduced to rivalry as a shorthand in unclear sports journalism), and probably something that needs to be proposed for cleanup work at WT:SPORT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi

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

A border line accept at WP:AFC with a passionate SPA creator. Not at all clear how they pass WP:GNG, apparently known for his role in the Khilafat Movement during the British Raj in Sindh, Pakistan, but the sources are not clear on what this role was, he managed a library and established the Sindh Provincial Khilafat Committee but these things are not inherently notable? Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment declined 12 times and rejected once, before being accepted at WP:AFC. Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is not quite an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The academic paper Contributions of Allama Syed Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi Towards Religion and Education". suggests that the subject is found notable by (some) Islamic scholars. I don't read Urdu, so I'm at a disadvantage for most of the refs, but ref 6 also suggests notability. I think the article has all sorts of problems, but notability is not one of them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The father of Shaykh Muhibullah, Shaykh Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi was a great and respected scholar, even King AbdulAziz had excellent relations with him and would exchange letters with him (as mentioned by Shaykh Muhibullah in his auto biography present in “Bahrul Ulum” p 41)
Allamah Sayid Sulayman Nadwi wrote: “Sayid Ihsanullah Shah (rah) was a great scholar of Hadith and its narrators. He had a treasure in his library of rare manuscripts of Hadith, Tafsir, and narrators (Rijaal). His yearning was such that he had copists busy in copying new manuscripts from manuscripts of west and east, Egypt and Shaam, Qustantiniyah (Turkey). He (rah) was a follower of the path of the Salaf and was distinguished in knowledge and action” -Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The quote you shared is from a self published website. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst working on the article I too found the source, but felt it didn't amount to significant coverage and was written in a hagiographic tone. Theroadislong (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are allowed to be hagiographic. The point is that multiple sources are commenting on the subject. Jeraxmoira, meanwhile, is applying strictly western values to a Pakastani publishing company, which seems unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you have checked it completely. It is posted by an 'admin' and there are no sources/ references to what is written on that website apart from his son's autobiography, "as mentioned by Shaykh Muhibullah in his auto biography present in “Bahrul Ulum” p 41". Their Facebook page is linked to an individual. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the number 1 reference and number 6 reference prove these article as well. Please take a look thank you so much SaneFlint (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I disagree with the deletion. I've added more references, including some in Urdu. I'm open to assisting with any issues and suggest using Google Translate for the non-English content to confirm.
I'm really trying hard to expend the great Wikipedia community to our region more closely thank you SaneFlint (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above should be interpreted as an opinion to Keep the article. The editor lacks experience with our processes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's collaborate to ensure clarity and find a resolution that works for all. SaneFlint (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I prefer not to vote as I've been extensively involved in this article, but I'd like to raise some points for other editors to consider. Here is my source assessment.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://archive.org/details/6.syedAhsan Yes Journal entry Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://archive.org/details/SufiSaintsAndStatePowerThePirsOfSind18431947BySarahAnsari Yes Yes WP:RAJ British author and publisher No ✘ No
https://www.aleeqaz.org/index.php/aleeqaz/article/view/140 Yes Yes No Has no mention of BDP ✘ No
https://archive.org/details/YaadERaftaganByShaykhSyedSulaimanNadvir.a/page/n107/mode/2up Yes Yes ? Unknown
https://www.salafiri.com/biography-shaikh-muhibullah-shah-ar-rashidi-as-sindhi-1415h/ Yes No It looks like it has been copied from a library entry of an essay with no references backing the claims. [19] Yes ✘ No
https://archive.org/details/MajallahBahrulUloomMuhaddisUlAsarNoMuhibullahShahRashdi_201502/page/n113/mode/2up Yes Yes No Not about BDP ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • The article mentions that the BDP is notable for its connection to the Khilafat Movement, but I couldn't find any information on the Khilafat Movement Wikipedia page or in the articles linked to it.
  • Lead mentions that he is an Islamic scholar but a WP:BEFORE on Google Books, scholar, JSTOR and newspaper returns with 0 results almost and I am not able to find primary sources of his works as well.

At this point [20] (not the assessment table above), Sources 1,2 and 4 are the same. 3 is unreliable per WP:RAJ and has no sigcov. 5 Only mentions BDP's father. 6 passes if someone can verify it. 8 is about BDP's son and not BDP themselves. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: while I agree with you on SIGCOV, I can't see how the book written in 1992 by Sarah F. D. Ansari, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London could possibly be considered unreliable under WP:RAJ. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am trying to make is that any source that talks about an event/BLP during the Raj era should be peer reviewed Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, according to the Wikipedia biography of the author, it was reviewed by Michel Boivin (CNRS, Paris) in the Bulletin Critique Des Annales Islamologiques in 1998 and by Seema Alavi in The Indian Economic & Social History Review in 1993. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the table, thank you! Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Fahads1982 and Faismeen: as members of Category:Translators ur-en with recent activity. Notability in this AfD may hinge on the first reference in the article, which is a book written in Urdu. Would you be able to check the references and establish whether there is WP:SIGCOV? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does its subject no favours - it begins "Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi was an 19th century Islamic scholar" but the next section says he was born in 1896. The quote in the "death" section is mangled to make no sense. What were his actual achievements, beyond running a (private?) library? The Sarah Ansari book Sufi Saints and State Power: the Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947 (Cambridge, 1992) ought to be an excellent RS, bang on this very obscure area, but it is only used to ref the litigation with his brother. He has no article in any other language. Khilafat Movement lists two other books, from BRILL and Columbia, that ought to be RS & very much on this topic. Does he appear in either? Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to him at Pir Jhando, where he seems to be mentioned (in a rather longer version of his name). Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Sufi Saints and State Power for the subject and his father returns nothing apart from the litigation. Same on the Columbia book as well! Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References like 1 and 2/6 are key sources in a urdu language, offering insights into his work and life. Sarah FD's book primarily centers on his father and a Privy Court case against him, SaneFlint (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Mar4d: as a currently active editor who had added themselves to Wikipedia:Translators_available#Urdu-to-English: Notability in this AfD may hinge on several Urdu references in the article. Would you be able to check them to establish whether there is WP:SIGCOV? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d hasn't edited for 11 days, so I have gone ahead and accessed the first source (which most of the references rely on) through the Wikipedia Library, allowing me to download the 12 page PDF. I tried uploading it to Google Translate, which has a document translation facility, but this didn't work because the Urdu text is an image - it needs to be OCRed. I have been able to use Azure AI document intelligence to extract the Arabic script, and then used the translation facilities in Microsoft Word to translate the whole document. There are plenty mentions of the subject in the text - from what I can tell, most of the 12 pages of text is about him. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could someone review references 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7? They contain crucial information mainly written in Urdu. Additionally, for more insights, consider searching for "Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi" سید احسان اللہ شاہ راشدی in Urdu, as there is an article on Urdu Wikipedia. Many websites also use his name in Urdu and Sindhi. It will help for more deeper results on Google as well. Thanks.🙂
سید احسان اللہ شاہ راشدی SaneFlint (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What may make a difference to the outcome of this discussion is the publication on Commons of two files, currently displayed in the article. I am unable to translate them at all. Thus I present them without further comment, save that the author of the article states that they are part of a tribute, read out in 1923, to the subject of the article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Timtrent: If you have the Google Translate app or Microsoft Translator on your smartphone, with the app open you can point your camera at your PC screen and it will translate the text from Urdu into English. Good luck understanding the result though, given the lack of context! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says Things from Pir Rushdullah Shah Rashdi are now transfered to Ihsanullah aka Fazalullah. he's now a sajadah Nashin. A successor etc Some praising qasida with mentions of Darul Rashad Madirsah being first to be established in Sind and mentions about his jamaat etc hope it helps 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leters are NOT reliable independent sources and photographs of them are even less reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely correctly stated. I feel, though, it may shed some light into the reality. It is an interesting artefact, but not a reliable one as far as we are concerned. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. It just shed lights on a topic. I again request everyone to focus on references especially urdu ones to be checked. REF 1 was confirmed/ checked by @Curb Safe Charmer I hope other as ref 2 and 5 6 7 etc will be checked and confirmed too thanks 😊 SaneFlint (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to check that the statements cited to reference 1 are verifiable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation was about subject name being mentioned or being there. 🙂
Please try to verify them your precious time will be appreciated 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like the discussion is ongoing regarding notability being established by Urdu-language references, so relisting to give more time to examine and discuss this as consensus as it stands is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Hi I think there is a misunderstandings on this mentioned pdf, Pir Ihsanullah Shah is known as Pir Jhandey or Pir of Jhando as well, Sames term For his father is used but here you can see https://ibb.co/ckV9FPP Pir Turab Ali Shah is second name of Rushidullah Shah he's mentioned on it and also Pir Jhandey Shah which term is also used for Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi, more about his achievements are mentioned in a reference nnumber1.
    You can confirm Pir Jhandey Wala term being used for Ihsanullah in a reference number 1 page number 10, hope it helps 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    p39 reads It was presided over by Pir Syed Abu Turab Muhammad Rashdullah Shah, Popularly known as Pir Jhandey Waley. At this point, I am wondering how "Pir Jhandey Walay" is being used for both the subject and his father. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    his father and himself the subject both were known by same slogan Pir Jhandey Wala or Pir of jhando. Here you can see https://ibb.co/QbYR7bs reference number 1 page number 10, mentions same name Pir Jhandey. Also one thing is worth noting that in a pdf it says Pir Abu Turab Shah rashdi and Pir of Jhandey Shah attended but in a 39th page Pir Jhandey Shah is term used for Pir Rushdullah Aka Pir Abu Turab which was a second name of Rushdullah Shah as well.🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Misunderstandings are not uncommon, particularly given language subjects differences. It's understandable that English speakers may find certain nuances confusing. Moreover, could you kindly verify references for verification? Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.🙂🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    two pictures I had uploaded on a page were 100 years older were removed. Claim was that picture doesn't contain subject name. Here is a translation which shows subject name on first - https://ibb.co/p4ZS4jd
    I know translations are annoying but some words are worth noticing 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. SaneFlint, a significant contributor to both the article and the discussion above, has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per my previous comment and source assessment above. Events mentioned in the article are merely notable, there are no other sources to verify it and its vaguely supported by the major contributor's word/ translations. There are instances of them trying to add unsourced content and deliberately introducing factual errors on quoted statements (discussion is on their talk page). This situation discredits their translations, particularly because we lack other Sindhi language editors to verify the information at this point. Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current consensus is still unclear, but relisting to see if a consensus emerges. The sockpuppetry block of a major contributor to this AFD and the article itself may change the arguments presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 23:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. If you want to change general precedent on how to deal with these types of articles, consider starting an RfC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel Hill tram stop

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

Non-notable tram stop. All the references link to the Transport for London webpage, which is a) primary, and b) not WP:SIGCOV. The content on this article feels like something more suited for Fandom. A lot of the tram stops on {{Tramlink RDT}} probably need review as well. Also, see WP:NTRAINSTATION. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 17:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tramlink with no prejudice against a single article for the route. Many transport enthusiasts get very emotional about Wikipedia articles on stations and stops, feeling that every station or stop has a right to a full article. But these articles end up as generic clones all saying the same thing, and all based on the same primary sources. This doesn't help our readers. There is a very good reason why bus companies release their timetables as a single table, not a set of slips of paper, one for each stop, each saying something along the lines of "Jones Street Bus stop is a bus stop on line 23, preceded by Ink street and followed by King's avenue, and is operated by Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses painted in a green livery. The Jones Street bus stop primarily serves passengers alighting or embarking at Jones Street and traveling to other locations that aren't Jones Street but that can also be reached by big green buses on line 23, possibly involving getting off the bus and interchanging to something else". Where a station has history, notable events, and secondary coverage, give it an article. Where it doesn't, write a single article about the entire route. Elemimele (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broader discussion needed. Many articles about Tramlink stops are similar in quality to this one and they should be discussed as a complete set. With one exception, the new-build stops were built and opened at the same time so the available sourcing is likely going to be pretty similar for all of them and the same people are going to know what exists and where to find it. Leaving this as a redlink is simply not going to happen (it's obviously a plausible search term, and afaik no AfD about a railway station or tram stop article with no verifiability issues has resulted in a "delete" outcome, only "keep", "merge" or "redirect"), so the questions are whether to merge or redirect and what the target should be, but as the only plausible targets that currently exist are Tramlink (too large to merge anything too, to high level to be useful) and List of railway stations and tram stops in Croydon (also too broad and not suitable as a merge target) a new article will need to be written (possible title: List of Tramlink stops) to contain the clearly encyclopaedic information (at minimum the opening date, location and entry/exit figures) a merge is in practice what needs to happen if the article can't be expanded (I've not looked to see what coverage not in the article already exists). However rather than having the identical discussion about the majority of the 39 stops we should have one single discussion that determines which stops have sufficient coverage for standalone articles and which don't, and what the overview article looks like. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: I like the idea, maybe it would be a good to construct a notability table of all the tram stops and depots, and then make a mass nomination. We can probably use Fandom as a starting point for List of Tramlink stops. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 21:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a broader discussion per Thryduulf. There is no situation in which deleting a single article of a tightly defined set (such as the 39 tram stops of this system) makes sense. Either all are notable (my suspicion, given the amount of public discussion that likely went into the project), or only the National Rail interchanges are notable, or only those at current/former National Rail stations (about half) are notable. But there's no reasonable possibility that only this single station is not notable, so it makes no sense to AfD it alone. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pi.1415926535: "All are notable" I doubt it. Most stops like this one are ... well ... just stops. Nothing has ever really happened to them. Would you give a bus stop an article? I have no prejudice against something like List of Tramlink stops. The exact same thing happened to London buses a few years ago - a lot of the routes were purged for not being notable and were replaced by List of bus routes in London. But yeah, I support broader discussion — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 18:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about the size of the stop; it's about whether there's sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Articles I've taken to GA include a "station" with no platform, a station with a small platform that lasted only a year, a station with nothing but bus shelters, tram stops very similar to this one, and indeed bus stops - all of which have plenty of coverage. In the modern era, planning and construction of major transit lines tends to generate sufficient press coverage that even individual tram stops often meet GNG, particularly if it goes through multiple revisions due to public pressure. I can't personally verify whether any individual Tramlink stop meets GNG - I don't have access to UK newspapers or relevant books/magazine - but I suspect that an editor with the relevant knowledge and source access could very well find sufficient coverage to pass GNG. In any case, the most important point here is that taking a single member of a defined set to AfD almost never makes sense. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Not sure why Fandom is being brought up here - Rail infrastructure is as encyclopaedic as anything else. The Tramlink articles should be discussed as a whole. Garuda3 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garuda3: This is a lot like the purge of London Bus routes. Also, you say "Rail infrastructure is as encyclopaedic as anything else". These tram stops have like no reliable sources or SIGCOV. They are not notable just because they are tramp stops, see WP:NTRAINSTATION. But yeah, I would say broader discussion is required on review. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And quite a few London bus routes have been recreated as it turned out they were notable. Garuda3 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garuda3: After doing some GNG review on the stops (feel free to contribute and correct me btw), a lot more than I thought were notable. However, there's still a decent chunk (like the London Buses) that aren't notable. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 16:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Bloodsworth Island. I targeted the specific section that discusses this character. RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil (The Walking Dead)

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

Non-notable Walking Dead character, no coverage just episode summarys Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, per arguments at the other AfDs.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Saviors. I made the target the section that discusses this character. RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arat (The Walking Dead)

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

Non-notable Walking Dead character, no coverage just episode summarys Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, sourcing is not sufficient to justify a standalone.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing much on the page to suggest notability, I see refs that confirm subject existed but nothing I can see in significant detail possibly as AtD would be to merge with Law Library of Congress JMWt (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Commentary on the sources would be great :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets GNG with sources listed above by Last1in, especially The IALL International Handbook of Legal Information Management and The Futurist. The Law Library Journal piece is a good third source, though a bit shorter on coverage afaict. I am not confident the NASA/Maryland source is independent, but I might be misunderstanding Kalpakis' role. —siroχo 19:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. But I'll admit that Quantity of nonreliable sources can, in extreme cases, make up for a shortage in RS is an AFD argument I haven't encountered before. If this is actually written down in poilcy anywhere, you might have a short of reversal of this closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Write-only language

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

Witticism of no independent notability. Wikipedia is not the Jargon File (which has been used as a reference here despite being one of the most notoriously unreliable sources on the Internet.) The only source which isn't either user-generated or by definition unreliable is for the APL Game of Life paragraph, which is already adequately covered elsewhere. (the reference to The Craft of Text Editing is simply wrong; that source uses the term in a completely different way.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm in two minds about this, because although in general I agree that Wikipedia should not be a repository of jargon, this is a term that people are quite likely to look up. One could even call it an important concept in programming, especially for those of us who detest C/C++. Athel cb (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Athel cb. Quantity of nonreliable sources can, in extreme cases, make up for a shortage in RS. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This dates from the time when people really did import the Jargon File uncritically into articles. Our standards are far higher now. Indeed, they were far higher then. I remember a few repeating-the-Jargon-File articles being deleted, or completely rewritten using far more accurate sources, back around the middle 2000s. This is not a real properly documented concept in computing. You won't find anything other than computer humour lists with this. No-one truly regards languages as "write only" and seriously discusses them as such.

    This is unverifiable from reliable sources, because in the world outside of jokes it isn't true. And it isn't properly documented standalone as a joke. At best, there are reliable sources that give 1 sentence to saying that APL, specifically, is jokingly called this, by "wags" and putting "write-only language" in quotation marks. (Torben Ægidius Mogensen's 2022 Programming Language Design and Implementation says "jokingly" and uses quotation marks, Kent's and Williams's 1989 Encyclopedia of Microcomputers has "wags".)

    That's at best 1 sentence in APL (programming language), and a not particularly good one at that. (The stuff that grew in the article at hand around 2011 about something else was rightly challenged and removed in 2019 for being a joke on "blogs and wikis", as is discussed on the talk page.) I notice that our APL (programming language) article proceeds to present an unsourced serious counterargument to what is only a joke assertion in the first place according to these reliable sources. Ironically, editors trying to seriously correct what is a joke is even in the edit history of the article at hand. The very first version in 2004 tried to seriously counterargue the joke and point out that it wasn't really the case.

    The best that you'll get for other computer languages is publicity blurbs on book jackets and letters to the editor in amateur computer magazines. No, Bjarne Stroustrup doesn't actually seriously discuss this as a concept either, despite what Google Books string matches might tell you. This is an encyclopaedia, not yet another computer humour book. People can look up stuff that is wrong; that doesn't mean that we should have badly sourced wrong stuff, that people have been pointing out is wrong since the inception of the article in 2004, solely in order to satisfy them. Delete.

    Uncle G (talk) 04:15, 28 November 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) 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Uncle G. Interesting as a literal example of citogenesis. Source 4[26] cites this article(!) for it's definition of write-only language. I couldn't see any reliable sources in a quick google search and CS sources are usually readily available via google.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conductive Education School, Kuwait

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

No refs on the page, nothing found to suggest notability criteria are met JMWt (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter England

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

Brandpromotion given the poor not reliable source Linkusyr (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election

Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary fork from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, literally repeating what’s there. A couple of us re-directed to that article, but that has been disputed by one editor, thus bringing this to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a bad fork of content from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, that at best will duplicate material from it and at worst will diverge, either missing material that should be in both or causing material to be missing from the original article that should be in both. No discussion to split the source article has been had and this would not be the most natural or appropriate split if one were deemed appropriate. Could redirect to the appropriate section of the original article but an article title more consistent with other opinion polling articles on Wikipedia would probably make more sense for that! Ralbegen (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If majority want to delete; would suggest moving this polling table to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland Titus Gold (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone with any knowledge of Scottish Politics knows that this topic is, for many purposes, quite independent of the wider UK situation (even although it's the same parliament). It has quite distinct political consequences - and that (and this is the only metric that matters) of particular usefulness to the reader. (I stumbled on this debate googling for Scottish polls for Westminster). The topic in the end is not the parliament, but the opinion polls themselves - and entirely separate polling is regularly done in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am keen not to personalise this discussion, however I have to question the referrers motivation being based more on spite than anything else and would ask that previous talk discussions in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election and especially the topics of 'Scottish Election Study' poll and 'Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general' election article and form a view as to the referrers motivation. I would also ask that you look at the efforts of 2 of these contributors to arbitrarily close down the article by installing a redirect. In addition by coincidence (i am sure) the article has had its categories referred for review. All of this in the space of the last 24 hours. Reluctantly I have to come to the view that they have not acted in good faith.
There is talk of this being a sudden fork, which is provable nonsense, the current article developed from a long standing article on Polling in Scotland for UK election and has slowly developed and grown to its present form, which aims to provide a neat clean and easy way to view the Scottish context, in addition it compliments 2 other unique Scottish Polling articles on Holryood polling (devolved parliament) and the long standing article on polling about independence
On to the topic created
Politics in Scotland is very different from that in the rest of the UK, be that in Elections for the devolved parliament at Holyrood, on Independence and yes how they view and vote on elections for the UK Parliament, these facts themselves merit it having its own article. If deleted this unique information will buried in the huge UK article. Wikipeadia is a very broad church and there are numerous examples of articles covering the same or very similar topics, on the Topic of UK polling there are already several that I know of, on polling in Scotland for UK election there is at least 3. There is plenty of scope for this diversity and Scotlands unique position deserves to be recognised.
I would argue that the article is better maintained with more consistent than the subsection of the UK article, linking to the key data provided by pollsters, the best information is always to link to the data tables provided by pollsters, and to remove links to less reliable sources such as social media and many newspapers.
Lastly why do the referrers have the view that only one all encompassing article is such a good thing? Leave the article alone and please stop this petty vindictive behaviour, you are not the keepers of all things polling in or out of Scotland and should stop behaving in such an arrogant and high handed manner.
There is sufficient difference in the articles that both should be allowed to continue and flourish. Soosider3 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would be very helpful if we could concentrate on the content and policy rather than the motives of editors. This is undoubtedly a content fork, so the question at AfD is whether it is an acceptable content fork or else a WP:BADFORK. Looking at the content, it is almost an exact duplication of the Scotland section of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. This makes it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As long as the same information is to be kept and maintained side by side this will qualify as a bad fork. It is the old bugbear of unnormalised data. Duplication of effort and inconsistency will creep in, and it is not at all clear how the reader is served. This could be repaired if the consensus here were to make it a WP:SPINOUT. The parent article can just point to this article, and the information there can be deleted. Should it, though? Surely when we are talking about the United Kingdom general election, the reader is better served by having all the information in one place. The article is not oversized. This one looks to me like a redirect but I'll hold off to see if there are good reasons for a spinout first. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would usually agree wholeheartedly with you on the matter of concentrating on the discussion, but in this instance the behaviour of the instigators of this has at the very least to be questioned as it brings into question the good faith principle.
The article under discussion stands on its own merits, polling in Scotland is separate and unique this alone merits it as a separate article and not one buried deep in another article, readers already have the option of looking at UK level polling. There is mention of merging with another Scotland polling article, the fact that this also exists demonstrates that there is a need and in fact it is desirable to have separate articles, or should we be looking at classing that one as a fork as well.
This article does not bother with a whole range of other items in it because its aim is to provide a simple clean layout that readers knows will deliver clear and concise information on polling in Scotland, the quality of the data it provides is of a higher and more consistent quality than other related articles, in particular the consistency with which it links to the most reliable sources of information on polling ie the published data tables of the polling companies rather than to less reliable sources such as social media, clients articles, newspaper articles, this gives a much greater depth of information removed from subjective interpretation. Have a look at the other articles, many of their links are to less reliable sources. The deletion or merging of this article would be a loss and particularly to the readers. My country deserves to better represented that being the 11th item in the index Soosider3 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soosider3 doesn't like various consensus decisions at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and wants their WP:OWN article. We are discussing a single election. It makes sense for the opinion polling for that election to all be in the same place. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus requires participants to be acting in good faith and in a sensible manner following facts where they are present. Regrettably your logic is somewhat flawed as it would suggest that only one article should exist on polling for the UK election, I'm sure that's not what your proposing. Soosider3 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest there should be one polling article per election, which is the norm for most opinion polling articles across Wikipedia. There is only one Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election or Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, for example. (Of course, we should and do have separate articles for separate elections, like Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland (edit: or Delete, with the intention to transclude the original section at the UK polling article into the Scottish general election one) This article was originally that article, but seems to have been duplicated at some point. Nonetheless a fork. Not commenting on whether a Scottish "fork" of any GE article should exist considering that article also exists, with a generalised one being more worthy. I wonder if transclusion can be done to ensure the tables on both are the same? Plus the UK article is very long. DankJae 20:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended position, open to deletion, should this be a pushed for unclear consensus. DankJae 16:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of this article, it follows the fairly traditional layout with index box and information about state of parties etc, I tend to feel that much of that gets in the way of the core purpose of Polling Articles, which is why the Polling in Scotland for next UK election was created, to simplify and present a clearer less cluttered look. I have noticed a difficulty with maintaining the links to the data tables and would be happy for you to use the table for your article, not sure how we do that technically but and happy to learn. Soosider3 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland per DankJae. As per my comment above, this is clearly a content fork, and equally clearly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which is a policy reason to delete. It forks Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election but the content is also entirely in the scope of (and already on the page of) Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. A case for splitting out home nations from the parent article can be made, but a further spin out of the opinion polling from the Scotland article is a much harder case to make. In any event, these are not spin outs as they stand. They are content forks. Some rationalisation still required even with a merger, but the merge will reduce the unnecessary duplication. Soosider3 argues that sourcing in this article is superior (without apparently noticing that this makes the case for rationalisation and data normalisation). I cannot see that the sourcing is very different here, but on the basis that some sourcing would be copiable from this page to the merge target, merge is the correct result over redirect or delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting argument, however I would point out that the UK polling article is in itself a fork from a previous and still existing article that covers the some matter but with lots of additional material such as state of parties etc in fact it has a very long history going back to all the previous parliaments back to the 1990s. Logically we should by your reasoning all merge into that original article. No I think the article under consideration here stands on its own merits, happy to link the tables into the Next UK in Scotland article but to basically eradicate it is is to deprive readers of options of how they wish to see the data. Soosider3 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what you describe are related articles. This one is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK because it contains exactly the same information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would correct you on at least one matter, the content is not exactly identical, both have chosen to treat polling from the Scottish Electoral Study (SCOOP) in a different manner, one follows the advice of the pollster YouGov and does not compare them with other polls, the other article doesn't. I would urge you if you have the time to look at the discussion on that very topic on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scottish_Election_Study_poll
    I would also say that Polling in Scotland is very different from the rest of the UK and by that alone deserves to be in its own article. Soosider3 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case it is a WP:POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. I find Sirfurboy's logic persuasive. Aslo, from a policy perspective, there is no current indication that the polling in Scotland is inherently notable separate from the election itself, nor from the UK polling if that is the consensus merge target. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is tangential to the AfD discussion, but covers possible sequelae. There have been a number of suggestions to merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland as opposed to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Either way will still leave us with the same material replicated at both those articles, violating WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I suggest we set up a transclusion of the relevant section at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (the more heavily edited article) to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. Any comments anyone? Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. It'd be good to have the material kept up-to-date in a single location that has the most eyes on it (and, selfishly, where I can notice if things have been added so I can update the graph!) Ralbegen (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a transclusion can be set up, that would be fine. Failing that, it would be useful if the table were in one article or the other and then cross linked. But a transclusion will make the information more readily accessible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several suggested Merge target articles as well as an opinion that this page be transcluded which is an editorial action to take if it's decided to Keep or Merge this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input.
Close the Afd
The discussion seems to have spun off at a tangent. Where comments appear to be more to do with Polling Tables between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland which has little if anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland, that discussion should happen somewhere else and not on this topic line.
So if we could get back on topic, the summary from the initial AfD was 2 for deletion, 2 for Keeping, a neutral, a comment and Merge options that were actually proposing different things on different articles so perhaps not reasonable to see it as a unified and clear view that leads to consensus.
The original discussion was unclear on the identified topic and therefore I believe the correct course of action is to close down the AfD, leave the article as it is as there is no clear consensus for change. Please encourage the unrelated discussion to be had somewhere else. Soosider3 (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
correction
"anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland"
should read "anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_in_Scotland_for_next_United_Kingdom_general_election" Soosider3 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for AfD participants to summarise the consensus. A closing admin will do that. But, for the avoidance of doubt, My merge !vote should be read as defaulting to delete if there is no merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh had not realised it was a single transferrable vote system !! Soosider3 (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above JM (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Sayyed

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

Article's entire contents are ten words, backed up by ten references in which this activist is mentioned in passing in nine, and not at all in one. All of the coverage provided is in relation to a group of southeast Asian fishermen stranded on a ship unable to dock in the UAE. All that I can tell from the nine passing mentions is that Ms. Sayyed is a social worker acting as a spokesperson for the stranded workers. I'm normally a critic of the "no claim of significance" speedy deletion criteria but I don't know why Ritchie333 declined this one. It also was created by a sockpuppet known for repeatedly recreating biographies of non-notable people, who already reverted draftification. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a procedural note, I declined the A7 because the article had citations to multiple sources, some of which name-checked the subject in the title. I don't have any strong views on whether the article should be kept or deleted; indeed AfD is probably the right thing to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I also noticed those name-checking sources when I was writing this up. I had in my mind that it was more than one but the only one I see now is Unpaid Indian workers in Kuwait get help, thanks to social worker Shaheen Sayyed, and even that doesn't really go into much detail other than saying she supported the workers. But here's something interesting: that article opens with text describing a government minister meeting with the workers, who were carrying placards saying that the only person helping them was Shaheen Sayyed. Another article titled Kuwait social worker a messiah for scores opens with identical text, and also uses that text as a teaser, and that article still doesn't give her much significant coverage. Were those two articles written from provided copy, i.e. a press release meant to promote the cause or raise the profile of the activist? Did they hire this editor to write them a promotional Wikipedia bio? I don't know, but it's certainly suspicious, especially given this sockfarm's history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the cited references is substantial coverage of her. (Incidentally, I can see that the presence of multiple references mentioning her name could perhaps be balanced against the lack of a claim of significance in the article, and that there may be a case for letting that be taken into consideration when reviewing an A7 nomination, but when none of those references does much more than barely mention her, I find "obvious decline A7" (my emphasis) a surprising edit summary.) JBW (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd cut Ritchie some slack on that. A7 is perhaps the tag most frequently used inappropriately, and I'm probably guilty of similarly snarky removal summaries too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JBW User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has further information, including the reasons for creating the criteria in the first place. Incidentally, those reasons, to stop unregistered users creating articles like "Joel Snodgrass is the principal of Podunk High School, Idaho. He specialises in teaching math." were stopped anyway by preventing IPs from creating articles in late 2005 following the Wikipedia biography controversy, and the further when non-confirmed editors stopped being able to create them in 2018, following this RfC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, User:Ritchie333. I have some more thoughts about this, which I will post on your talk page. JBW (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Putting aside the sock and likely UPE activity, I evaluated for notability alone. The references on the page simply mention here with others and do not go into depth. I found this in a search which talks more about here in-depth, but it isn't independent as it is full of quotes and says in the intro "in a conversation with" which indicates the majority of the content was supplied by her. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find links to a site called the "Logical Indian" via Gnews, unsure if it's a RS. That's about all there is for this person. Unless the Logical Indian is a RS, it's a delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 12:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murphy (hairdresser)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ORG. Primary purpose seems to be to promote the article subject and his company. Reads like a resume. Geoff | Who, me? 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete opinions are Weak. There is also an ATD mentioned with a possible draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify or delete. The sourcing is weak for a BLP but he has clearly worked at the top of his profession for many years and gotten recognition for that. The question is whether there are enough sources about his life/career (and not his styling tips) to write an article and I am not really seeing that from the sources in the article or linked above. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Marigold

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

Article about a novel, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for novels. This is written principally in-universe, without showing much evidence of real-world significance -- the attempted notability claim is that it was a "Canadian independent bestseller", but that's sourced only to an informal list personally compiled by a writer for a single minor literary magazine, which undermines its own reliability with an "I acknowledge that this list is not at all perfect. It is only a small sampling of the data out there" warning, and thus isn't a notability-making bestseller list.
The only other source cited here is a single book review, which is fine but not enough all by itself -- even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source.
Additionally, it warrants note that the author doesn't have a WP:BLP at all -- and while that isn't a speedy deletion criterion for books in the same way that it is for musical albums whose artists don't have articles, it does still raise the question of how the book can be notable enough to warrant an article if its author isn't.
There just isn't anything here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this novel from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's really hard to assess books because the publishing industry contains as many publicists as it does publishers. No book is released in print without, behind the scenes, the publishers going to a lot of trouble to arrange interviews with anyone likely to publicise the author, wangle reviews wherever they can, and do everything possible to raise the book's profile. It's really hard to sift through the large quantity of Google hits on this book and work out which are truly independent, which not. In a way, I'm sceptical about articles on books, and feel that they are only warranted if a book has sustained coverage. We will probably only know whether a book is truly notable a couple of years after it appears. And it seems odd that we consider deleting The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse which is still on sale (in multiple formats including audio books) more than 100 years after it was written, because a Google search can't find reviews (ummm... there wasn't an internet when it would have been reviewed...) while possibly keeping this one, because it has got reviews, having been born in the publicity/internet age. I almost feel we should have a near-moratorium on books (and films!) that have just been released, but getting a Wikipedia article is now a standard part of the publicity expected by the industry. Elemimele (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant House Toronto

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

Only organization's own website is quoted; no other significant sources were found nor added. Should be removed (W:NCORPT) Linkusyr (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Osman

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

Has had some success, but other than the Times review doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Sudan, Lebanon, England, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - she has changed her name to Sam Hepburn and written more books since the one book that had been identified in the article at the time of the nomination. I am continuing to conduct research, but have been able to add a review from The Telegraph, and generally expand the article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the expansions I made, there appears to be some support for WP:AUTHOR#3 notability based on reviews for her children's/young adult novels. Her debut novel was reviewed in the Financial Times, The Telegraph, and The School Librarian, and apparently The Times or Times Literary Supplement (the link is not working in the article, or from her archived website, and only an abstract is available on ProQuest); another novel has reviews from The School Librarian and BookTrust, and another novel is reviewed by The School Librarian. As to her later works, I did not find reviews to support notability, and none are listed on her official website. There is also a source she wrote on Writing.ie, which includes reference to a news article and supports some biographical information; I have not yet searched for coverage of her journalism/documentary filmmaking career, but there may be further sources available. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military of the Bruneian Sultanate (1368–1888)

Military of the Bruneian Sultanate (1368–1888) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like other articles on this subject matter, there is the possibility that the subject discussed is notable. However, the article fails to establish a strong basis for its periodization, both with its content and with sourcing. Sourcing itself is the largest issue, as only a single reference is present; previously, two blog posts supported some additional material redundant to Castilian War. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blogs are written from a professional and according to Wikipedia:Newspaper and magazine blogs as it can be acceptable sources. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with @Syazwi Irfan: the blog by Rozan Yunos meets the exception criteria for blogs. Much of the content on the site are republications of his column "Golden Legacy" in the now defunct The Brunei Times and he does cite other sources. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a poor basis of rationale. Sure, the blog might be within the realm of being reliable, but it fails to provide a basis of for supporting the notability of the subject. The blog posts would be better suited to verifying the specifics regarding the historical they describe rather than being used as original research regarding a military that, as far as present sourcing is concerned, has no basis of being described as a single continuous institution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG. Source eval:
Comments Source
No pp#. Looking at this on Google books, I failed to see how this could have WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book desc: "Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam examines the role of traditional textiles played in modern Brunei Darussalam. Hand-woven textiles are an important part of Brunei traditional culture. This book examines the types of textiles and the roles that they have played in different situations, such as serving as signifiers of social status, wealth, and political prominence. The study focuses on how locally woven textiles have been used to express and construct identity, especially Brunei Malay identity and Brunei national identity." 1. Siti Norkhalbi Haji Wahsalfelah (2007). Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam. White Lotus Press. ISBN 978-974-480-094-7.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Page is in section on trade, does not address the subject 2. ^ Metcalf, Peter (2010). The Life of the Longhouse: An Archaeology of Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-521-11098-3.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book is on trade, page 50 indicated in ref is the opening page of the chapter, the "Golden Age of Brunei", does not address the subject 3. ^ de Vienne, Marie-Sybille (2015). Brunei. From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century. NUS Press. p. 50. ISBN 9789971698188.
(MA thesis) 4. ^ Jalil, Ahmad Safwan (2012). Southeast Asian Cannon Making in Negara Brunei Darussalam (MA thesis). Flinders University.
Book overview states, "The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei presents an overview of significant themes, issues, and challenges pertinent to Brunei Darussalam in the twenty-first century" and the article is about 1368–1888, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 5. ^ Gin, Ooi Keat; King, Victor T. (2022-07-29). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-56864-6.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "A 16th Century Spanish Account of Brunei". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth 7. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "The First Dutch Visit to Brunei in 1600". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth 8. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "Brunei in 1888". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
Nothing found in BEFORE. I thought "A history of Brunei", Saunders (2002) might have something, but it is focused on trade, political and social history; I did not search JSTOR.
There may be a notable subject here, especially during the 1485-1530 period, but the article as written needs TNT, there is nothing here properly sourced and worth keeping, that isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  // Timothy :: talk  22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Siti citation came from the Kalasag article, i am not sure where the others come from. maybe @Pbritti or @Pangalau can tell you where they got it from. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to project space‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Regional Conferences

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

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. The one cited source is nowhere near enough coverage to establish notability, and searches have found no further coverage in reliable independent sources. JBW (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These Regional Conferences are taking place in different parts of the world and in different dates, so thus far I have not come across any reputable news publication that can be cited written about Wikimedia Regional conferences as a collective. However, I do know that each conference has a news publication about it which can be used as citation.
Bobbyshabangu talk 10:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Rutgers University. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BioMaPS Institute for Quantitative Biology

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

No refs on the page for many years. Does not seem to be a good reason to consider it notable outside of Rutgers University, so possibly a merge is appropriate as AtD JMWt (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamaria

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy-delete (G11)‎ (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Sidharth Oberoi

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

Article seems to be purely promotional, not a biography at all. Mostly a description of his company LetsShave AriTheHorse 14:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for CSD. AriTheHorse 14:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Jack City. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CT (TV channel)

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

Pay TV channel, fails GNG and NCORP. Single source in article is Facebook, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  14:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Jack TV or Jack City. To be honest, I wasn't even aware that Jack TV was renamed to CT, though it looks like a shortlived rebranding effort. Therefore, a redirect would make more sense. -- Tito Pao (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs previously broadcast by CT

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

Fails NLIST and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Main article also fails GNG and NCORP, no target for a redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  14:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the AfD for the main article (where I voted in favor of merge). Main target should be Jack TV (which has been around for much longer before this shortlived rebranding) or, in the worst case scenario, the article about the parent company. -- Tito Pao (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hindi films of 1975. Daniel (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Ki Kasam (1975 film)

Ganga Ki Kasam (1975 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources at all. Film itself not available on YouTube. Possibly lost. Regardless, this fails WP:NFILM and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of info or a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The reasons given for keeping are "Subject is notable", "The subject of the article is obviously notable"; both without any indication why; "A notable social media personality who is mentioned in the same breathe as MrBeast, Patrick Bet-David, Dan Bilzerian, Dixie D'Amelio, Paul Logan, etc", but notability is not inherited from other notable people merely because one is mentioned together with them (I am sure I have sometimes been mentioned in the same sentence as notable people, but I am not notable); "Notable as an online personality and influencer and falls into that category"; "The subject seems notable enough", again without any indication why; "His online presence alone is good enough for a Wikipedia page"; I am not personally the greatest fan of the current notability guidelines, and I think there is a case for including "online presence" in the guidelines, but at present that is not so; "His notability is uncontestable", well, several people have contested it; "Coupled with the businesses he founded", which I can only assume means that we should regard notability as inherited from a business ot its founder, but we don't; "Page should stay", again without any indication why. Not a single one of those addresses Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so we have no policy compliant reasons for "keep" at all. JBW (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Gadzhi

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE, or WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the sources are all these three things at the same time: (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, (3) in-depth in terms of coverage. The person may have had some unspecified roles in some productions (World's Greatest Social Stars, Top 25!, etc.) but there is no evidence that these are significant productions and there is no evidence that these were significant roles. There is some coverage of a thing associated with the subject called "monk mode". Coverage of that is not meaningful in terms of sources useful for establishing notability either. The person has not made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" and is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". His YouTube channel, TikTok and other online presences are not encyclopedically relevant at all. —Alalch E. 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: Sure, I have seen the Gadzhi's social media content, and they are undeniably very well known. In spite, it does not really meet WP:N due to the reliable sources. Maybe draftify is the best option here. Seems like a fan made page, but I respect it!
Infomemoh (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]




Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"How Is This 21-Year-Old Entrepreneur Making Millions On YouTube ?". MYCOMEUP Magazine. 2021-04-26. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content No blog No promotional content ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi - From High School Drop Out To Founder Of The World's Largest Education Company". Inspiring Startups. 2020-07-01. Retrieved 2023-11-18. No looks like sponsored content; interview No blog of one invividual with it being possible that some content is by anonymous authors No interview and promotional content, including the preposterous claim that he is the "founder of the world's largest education company" ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi: Joe Rogan Wannabe Or Future Industry Disrupter?". Sir Thorney. 2022-09-01. Retrieved 2023-11-23. Yes No personal blog of "George (Sir Thorney)", an online marketing professional who started a bathroom decor brand. ~ bit harder to evaluate this source on whether it consists of promotion ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi Shares His Incredible Story Of Making $25 Million By 22 And Building 5 Schools In Nepal". OK Magazine. 2022-09-25. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content No tabloid-type source, article "By:OK! Staff", no evidence of editorial oversight No promotional content ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi (@realimangadzhi) Official". TikTok. Retrieved 2023-11-18. No self No No ✘ No
"Meet Iman Gadzhi: Millionaire Agency Owner". Grow Your Agency. 2019-03-04. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No self No No ✘ No
"The Journey of Iman Gadzhi: A Blueprint for a Sigma Male". Eternobody Fitness. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content No advertisement No promotional content ✘ No
"How To Sign A Client With Iman Gadzhi". MYCOMEUP Magazine. 2021-08-23. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content; interview No purely promotional website No promotional content ✘ No
"Youtuber Iman Gadzhi Shares 7 Ways to Make $10,000 A Month In 2023". Tlux Media. 2023-02-07. Retrieved 2023-11-19. No looks like sponsored content No marketing agency No promotional content / advertisement ✘ No
"What Is The 'Monk Mode' Trend On TikTok?". Indy100. Yes No tabloid-type churnalism platform of The Independent (sad) No no significant coverage of the subject (only a mention) ✘ No
"The People Going 'Monk Mode' To Limit Social Media Use". BBC News. 2023-10-01. Retrieved 2023-11-23. Yes Yes No no mention of the subject ✘ No
"I'm a CEO Who Tried 'Monk Mode' After Seeing It On TikTok. It Took A Month To Get Used To But Now My Productivity Is 5 Times Better". Business Insider. Retrieved 2023-11-23. Yes ~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER; interview with another individual ("This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Josh Wood, the 32-year-old CEO and founder of the tech hospitality company Bloc, ..."), not reliable for claims about Gadzhi No no significant coverage of the subject (only a mention) ✘ No
World's Greatest Social Stars! Top 25 (TV Series 2015–2020) 6.8 | Reality-TV, retrieved 2023-11-19 ~ can't know No WP:IMDB No ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi's Filmography (Internet Celeb, Actor, Entrepreneur)". Iman Gadzhi Filmography. Retrieved 2023-11-19. No self No No ✘ No
Kings of the Internet (TV Series 2022– ) 4.7 | Action, News, Reality-TV, retrieved 2023-11-19 ~ can't know No WP:IMDB No ✘ No
"Wie is Iman Gadzhi? - The Ecom Agency". theecomagency.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2023-11-19. No looks like sponsored content No marketing agency No promotional content ("So Iman Gadzhi is not only committed to his own success, but he also strives to help others succeed and have a positive impact on the world. His philanthropic efforts make him an inspiring figure that goes beyond just the business aspect of his career.") ✘ No
"'Cape Town Is SO cheap, I struggle To Spend $30k a month,' Says Russian Tycoon, Iman Gadzhi". CapeTalk. Retrieved 2023-11-18. ~ could be sponsored content No CapeTalk is a mainstream South African radio station, but their website is not very journalistic to put it mildly, with clickbait titles and no indication of editorial oversight No brief retelling of Gadzhi's video content with hardly any original insight, analysis or critique ✘ No
"Unveiling Iman Gadzhi's Luxurious $10,800 Home Gym". Gym Nirvana. 2023-11-15. Retrieved 2023-11-19. No looks like sponsored content No advertising platform run by an anonymous operator No promotional content ✘ No
"LOOK: Russian tycoon says he STRUGGLES to spend R500k per month in Cape Town". The South African. 2022-10-03. Retrieved 2023-11-18. Yes ~ this website is a mainstream South African online WP:NEWSORG, but not all of their articles are journalistic and many are tabloid-like; this article calls Gadzhi a "Russian tycoon" which is obviously false No churnalism; retelling of Gadzhi's video content relating to cost of living in South Africa; the article does not center on Gadzhi as such ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
—Alalch E. 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created a table and indicated whatever he could conjour up in his biased mind and called it assessment. Trying to intimidate amd sway votes because you have spent more time on Wikipedia is a Putin and Mugabe like behavior. Wallclockticking (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand and respect that it is detrimental to Wikipedia's goals of being a free online encyclopedia that acts a source of knowledge, and therefore needs to remain credible, to allow pages like the one you've created here to be allowed to remain a part of the encyclopedia. —Alalch E. 18:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respect Wikipedia's goals acting as a source of free knowledge, and stop complaining that you aren't most gonna get paid for getting your devious under the table job done to attempt to create a Wikipedia page for undisclosed payments. :))) @Wallclockticking 2601:589:4E00:BE40:9123:9291:D92A:76E6 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' - I smell socks and meat and recommend salting if page is deleted as this is just a sign that someone will attempt to recreate it despite any consensus here. That aside, nom is correct about notability. The references are not in-depth about the subject or otherwise unreliable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I'm persuaded by those editors arguing for Deletion. If an editor wants to work on improving this article in Draft space, contact me or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angi Uezu

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

Successful, but I couldn't establish how he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those sources are martial arts schools that teach that style--definitely not independent. Papaursa (talk) 16:14, 4 December 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) 03:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Coverage by martial arts schools is rarely independent and often unreliable. Searches in Japanese return a lot of wiki mirrors and more martial arts schools, plus some false hits. If that's the extent of the sourcing then he does not meet GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Andrews

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAD as his only win came in non notable Junior tournament. Also, there is nothing significant about this person when searching about him in Google, which makes him fail WP:GNG as well. zoglophie•talk• 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorwa Ashawari

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

Non-notable singer, not a winner of any show. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luiza Toshmetova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject seemingly made a single appearance for her national team. I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at all, nor is there any indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, no sigcov to speak of. However, I am concerned that you only seem to be submitting AfDs (like at least 1 a day!) for women footballers. Wikipedia's gender gap is bad enough as it is. Are you using women's football categories to find articles to suggest for deletion? If so, please consider the possible unintended negative consequences of this. Akakievich (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Hey there. I am very aware of the gender gap and understand how my actions may come across. To be frank, I am clearing obvious GNG fails from a single editor who created thousands of two- or three-sentence stubs before WP:NSPORT2022, when a requirement was put in place for sports bios to have "at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject." I have done this to a couple of editors who created non-notable stubs en masse, and I nominate up to five a day, but this specific user was especially prolific and happened to focus on women's footballers. I try to add SIGCOV when I find it (1, 2, 3, 4), but it's not often. JTtheOG (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clearing that up! If you're targetting non-notable stubs by a single editor, that sounds fine to me. Just wanted to ask the question since you do sometimes see people claiming good faith while evidently using all-female categories (or categories related to a single nationality, sexual orientation, etc etc) as deletion hitlists and I couldn't figure out the pattern behind your deletion work. thanks for the quick reply :) Akakievich (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get the gender bias issues, but non-notable articles are what they are, so no reason keeping them around just to score points on a gender parity scale. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's ok to subject articles about women to more thorough scrutiny than those about men. It is a fact of life that some non-notable articles will remain on Wikipedia, so it does matter how we go about finding and deleting those articles. Akakievich (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can only vote on what's presented to me. Cleaning up wiki is never a bad thing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said otherwise. Notice I voted delete before I even asked the question about JTtheOG's strategy (which in this case imo is completely fine and has no bias problems) – in any case, a non-notable subject is a non-notable subject and the article should be deleted. But lots of positive, small-scale actions CAN have an unintended, detrimental _large-scale_ impact.
Therefore I do think it is worth just asking, because it would allow us to alert a well-meaning user to the possible negative consequences of their actions (if they're unaware) or discuss/monitor/mitigate the larger-scale impacts if they refuse to change their approach. Basically, I think male and female subjects should be treated the same on Wikipedia, and currently that's usually but not always the case. On this AfD there's no problem though, as we have already established :) so I don't see the point in discussing this further, I think we mostly agree and any remaining points we disagree on won't affect anything practical. All the best, Akakievich (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23 as creation by sockpuppet of blocked user.‎‎ --Annh07 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kourage Beatz NSI (producer)

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

I have draftified this article earlier because all of the references in the article are unreliable sources (user-generated sources). If self-generated sources are eliminated, the article is not supported by any reliable source at all. Additionally, I and another user (Afí-afeti) removed some false information from the article (not supported by any source). The author moved the draft to the mainspace again without any improvement in source quality. A WP:BEFORE search did not provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Annh07 (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. ✗plicit 12:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elvina Djaferova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject seemingly made a single appearance for the team. I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at all, nor is there any indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Myanmar women's international footballers. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuper Khine

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

Redirect to List of Myanmar women's international footballers. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no evident of WP:SIGCOV found. Suggest a Redirect instead to Myanmar women's national football team#Players which might be more narrowly relevant than the suggested redirect. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Bernadette Caroline

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

A sad story, but no indication that this is actually a notable event with any WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and seems unlikely to get more traction. Fram (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wassila Alouache

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

The subject, an Algerian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing I found in my searches was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Bill characters#Senior officers. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Smith (The Bill)

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Bill characters#Senior officers. Spinixster (chat!) 08:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guybrush Threepwood

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

A video game character that sadly fails WP:GNG. Reception is based on listicles and passing mentions; only one reference mentions him in the title ([39] from Kotaku, and while the source is reliable, the coverage is very brief and relates to his inclusion as a guest character in another game). This trivia about his name from a similar and seemingly non-notable outlet (TheGamer on Wikidata, no Wikipedia articles about this werbsite) is not very helpful, either. Scholarly sources (GScholar) are just passing mentions. A minor academic article mentions him in the title ([40]) but fails to discuss him in any serious length. Ditto for this student thesis (I can't tell if this is master or below, seems to be just a course project?), and then we get even weaker sources, none of which sadly seems to have even a shred of usuable analysis. I'd be happy to be proven wrong (one of the early games in the series was one of my first video games, growing up...) but unless we can't find good sources, the best WP:ATD-R I can think of would be a redirect to the Monkey Island (series) that he is the main character of. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems to me the "Self-reflexivity and humor in adventure games" was in Game Studies, a conventional scholarly journal, and can therefore be considered reliable. Daranios (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Charles Wriothesley. ✗plicit 12:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wriothesley's Chronicle

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

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. I personally would prefer a merge to Charles Wriothesley, but given that the apparent lack of independent notability makes this an appropriate venue, I felt it would be more effective to take it here than directly propose a merge. Plus, this way anyone who actually wants it deleted can have a voice. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. That said, the sheer magnitude of the article in Russian should make us question whether we have a notability issue, or a translation issue. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ptaha

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No indication of notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris talk! 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources you've presented are not about the rapper's career, but only talk about his legal troubles, which are not enough for establishing notability; the BBC report only mentions the subject in passing and show a brief interview. There isn't even a single mention of any of his legal issues here on Wikipedia anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't have anything to do with legal troubles. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61: Once again, that source only mentions the rapper in passing and isn't solely about his career. Sources that mention the subject only in passing are not enough for establishing notability. CycloneYoris talk! 21:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the aggregate, they do establish notability Mach61 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two Keep arguments are not strong, but not one !vote has supported deletion. This needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Harrison

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

He is successful, but I wasn't convinced there is enough to show he is notable. Mentions in articles, but not enough in-depth. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to IIT Kharagpur. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurship Cell, IIT Kharagpur

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

It exists but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. There is the possibility of a merge/redirect to IIT Kharagpur, but I am not sure it merits much mention in that article. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Davis (musician)

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

Successful musician who worked with notable people, but I couldn't establish that he himself was notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oratory Athenaeum for University Preparation

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

Does not appear that RS exist that show the subject meets the level of notability for inclusion on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. After several relists, consensus has tended towards deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fable

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

I'm not sure this passes NSINGER as written, and I can't turn up any new sources to push this over the edge – Fstoppers is the only secondary decently-reliable source with some amount of SIGCOV, but most of the meat of this article is sourced to interviews, most not in RSes. Yes, Fable has been involved with two charting singles, but "featured artist" and "co-writer" mean he's not really the primary artist credited with the charting – I don't think that guarantees notability against a fail of GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2. I do note that the Official Charts Company credits Venbee and Fable as equals, so I've amended the article to that effect.--Launchballer 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay, here's my question on this: how come WP:NSONG says that charting on a national chart makes the song maybe notable, but it automatically confers notability to the ~artist? even WP:MUSICBIO says those criteria don't automatically grant notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO states that subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may". dxneo (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cited sources are mostly passing mentions just like here and here, although they are credited as a primary artist on a charting song, there's no SIGCOV and a WP:BLP cannot be based on a charting song. I see here that the subject was/is signed to UMG and they would pass #5 per WP:MUSICBIO if they released at least two albums under the label but unfortunately they don't even have one. here is another two paragraph source about the subject releasing a new song. I think it's TOOSOON, maybe if they have a certified record or have been nominated for award(s) then yes they would definitely have an argument but I couldn't find any of that. Again WP:MUSICBIO states that the subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may", subject never headlined any RS news, I don't think that "may" applies here. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on his 2 charting tracks, which meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria.Royal88888 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal88888, "two" charting tracks? Which and which? Care to provide sources please? dxneo (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted my vote in good faith based on the content of the article. Read it and you will see his chart rankings mentioned. I have not verified the sources, but they are posted in the article if you read it. Royal88888 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal88888, we have all read the article that's why it is here now. The second song on the lead statement is NOT his song, next time please do a research before voting, or at least leave a "comment" instead of "keep" or "delete". dxneo (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo I stick with my vote. I re-read it. Co-writing a song and having credits is just as good for meeting WP:MUSICBIO terms, as there is nothing in guidelines suggesting otherwise. The guidelines apply to musicians also, not just artists. Royal88888 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: an IP closed as keep. It seemed suspicious, so I reverted it, but if consensus is that it's valid, i'm happy to let it stand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On one of the singles ("Low Down"), the subject is indeed a performer, meeting even a tight reading of the SNG. Criterion 2, met here, is straightforward and held at the same level as criterian 1, which is effectively a phrasing of GNG targeted toward musical acts. As always, we'd need some clear evidence that we're unable to write an encyclopedia article on the subject to override the presumption of notability that a notability guideline provides. Reviewing the sources in the article, there's enough verifiable information to summarize to create a start class or better article, so I see no reason not to use the guideline. —siroχo 08:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: dxneo and siroxo's contributions require further exploration to assess which is the more persuasive in this situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Source analysis indicates that the notability of the subject is at best borderline. I am unable to find a truly secondary source that's independent, reliable and of significant coverage, except for the fstoppers piece. Many of the sources here are primary sources (be it interviews or song listings).
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ascap.com/repertory#/ace/search/workID/919021704?page=1 ~ Database relies on submissions by songwriters and composers Yes Submissions are somewhat vetted/reconciled by two separate systems Being a listing of works of the subject, sigcov is not applicable here ? Unknown
https://iamur.one/carving-out-grooves-with-dan-fable/ No Article is an interview in QnA format Unknown editorial process. Site is of "a small team of volunteers who are passionate about music" (sic) Yes Sole subject. ✘ No
https://fstoppers.com/business/how-does-british-photographer-make-profit-shooting-ps100-music-videos-193776 Yes Although it is an interview. The bulk of the article is in prose form. Yes thus far there isn't much of an issue with fstoppers as a videography/photography source. written by a staff writer as well Yes primary subject with work about the cheap music video shoot ✔ Yes
https://www.nme.com/features/music-interviews/venbee-messy-in-heaven-goddard-interview-pinkpantheress-radar-3340236 No Interview QnA Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.clashmusic.com/features/i-do-my-best-and-it-seems-to-work-clash-meets-venbee/ No Interview. QnA style Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/62437/venbee/ Yes Yes No song listing ✘ No
https://ukf.com/words/we-need-to-talk-about-venbee/35869 No Interview. QnA Yes No Not the primary subject ✘ No
https://www.withguitars.com/dan-fable-delivers-poignant-alt-indie-gem-one-punch-tommy/ Feels like a press release rewrite Yes ? Unknown
https://readdork.com/news/dan-fable-single-one-punch-tommy/ Yes Yes No Short blurb. ✘ No
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcd43a8d-2951-4626-a5e1-ab918ded72eb/episodes/2548642a-6ddc-4945-8b0c-c2777198ba23/pretendship-diss-content-pretendship-ep-83-w-dan-fable No interview. podcast. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
– robertsky (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky: WithGuitars purports to have a team of writers including "a few former national editors of indie, alternative, and rock magazine titles" and John Robb.--Launchballer 01:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I didn't mark the site down for reliability. The issue of this piece of article is that though it is long, the only fact there that's cited for is in the first sentence that's also the first paragraph. The second paragraph is a mainly a quote from the subject, either from an interview or from a press material. The third is about the singer, but in the context of the release of the EP, feels promotional. Hence the ? from me. – robertsky (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any response to source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010jf2g Yes Yes No Going through the programme page and listening to the available episodes at random, it seems that each episode is cramped with different songs with very brief introduction each. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014k8wd Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p017mb0b Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.allmusic.com/album/zero-experience-mw0004120039 No No iirc, allmusic is considered as WP:UGC No ✘ No
https://www.musicweek.com/publishing/read/north-west-songs-launches-with-roster-including-dan-fable-sekou-no-guidnce-and-daniel-avery/087248 Yes Yes No Feels like a press release rewrite of the company the subject is signed to. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qrsj Yes Yes No 60 minutes of playback of dozens of songs... ✘ No
https://www.musicweek.com/interviews/read/hitmakers-dan-fable-tells-the-story-behind-his-and-venbee-s-dnb-hit-messy-in-heaven/088033 No Interview No Yes ✘ No
https://www.ascap.com/repertory#/ace/writer/1083501581/NEWMAN%20DANIEL%20GEORGE ~ Database relies on submissions by songwriters and composers Yes seems to be vetted, as asserted by the website List of works ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
My !vote still stands. – robertsky (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Essential Records (Christian). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Beeson

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

From an initial reading of this article, I was surprised it had been in CAT:NN for over 13 years, as it seemed notable. However, I couldn't find sources at the level I was looking for to source a BLP when I tried to find some to add. Possible redirect to Essential Records. Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More work needs to be done on this article and I suggest that it is redirected to the sandbox for it to be polished from there.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't understand what is meant by "redirected to the sandbox" as a resolution to this discussion. Which sandbox? Articles are typically redirected to target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If any editor wants to work on a draft, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Bugaeva

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage is limited to images of her in costume, repeated on numerous websites, without in-depth analysis or biographical content. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources were a bust. I also found French Cosmo and one Turkish website, but they're basically photo galleries. Oaktree b (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Maclean, 1st Laird of Brolas

Donald Maclean, 1st Laird of Brolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little more than a genealogical entry, based essentially on one book, A History of the Clan MacLean ..., written by a Maclean, hence failing MacBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (the 3rd Laird of Torloisk has a second genealogical book reference, also written by a Maclean):

Lauchlan Maclean, 2nd Laird of Brolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Donald Maclean, 3rd Laird of Brolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lachlan Og Maclean, 1st Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hector Maclean, 2nd Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lachlan Maclean, 3rd Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Donald Maclean, 5th Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Dubh Maclean, 1st Laird of Morvern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ewen Maclean, 9th Laird of Ardgour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Rebuttal. BIO isn't a "policy/guideline"? Also, I don't know which articles you've been looking at, but - as I stated - only one has a second (dubiuous) source, and both being written by Macleans implies that they're not neutral/independent. I've removed one entry, as I didn't notice that the 2nd Laird represented his shire. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • [42] has three sources. And I don't think being a descendent of someone from 400 years ago makes John_Patterson_MacLean a non-independent author. I did miss the link to WP:BIO due to the (fairly amusing, I will admit) joke, my fault. Still, I tend to believe that 100s year old historical figures should have a much lower bar for inclusion and I stick by the notion that merging folks by area they were laird of would be a fine way forward. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- While I have only checked the primary article nominated, I see nothing in this but genealogical info. I see no substantial reason to object to the one source for COI or as a non-RS. However Bio-articles need to record what a person has done, not merely that they existed and had relatives. Being a laird is not a title of nobility, only gentry. My reason for deletion is that the subject is NN. Possibly the subjects could be listed in the articles on the places of which they were lairds. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. No need to drag this out further. Cheers for a constructive discussion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Hartwell

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

This association footballer biography article has zero references to establish notability. After searching (see article Talk for sources searched), unable to find in depth reliable sources. Did find many people with same name born before and after this person. Article was created on 12 December 2008. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Travis McGee

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

The arguments against this page had been listed in April 2022 at Talk:John D. MacDonald#Merger Proposal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As proposed, this doesn't work. The only argument listed (as a request to merge) is that the current article is just fancruft not up to wikipedia's standards, so presumably the intention is delete-and-redirect, not merge (hence being brought here instead?). I agree that there's too much fan-cruft trivia in the article, which should be trimmed. But this is the title character of a major series by a highly notable author. I'd be surprised if the subject isn't notable, and there is a case for arguing that if the article's got a load of rubbish in it, clean it up rather than deleting. Elemimele (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As one of the major post-war private eye characters, he should be notable. But the article needs a lot of work. I know I've read non-MacDonald works that write about the McGee character, but WP:MUSTBESOURCES is meaningless. I'm going to put the effort into finding these sources, and using them to improve the article. Or at least I'll try... Madam Fatal (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep A quick search found three possible sources, including Beacham's popular fiction in America, Journal of American Culture, and Private eyes : one hundred and one knights : a survey of American detective fiction, 1922-1984 - two journals and a book. I haven't (yet) been able to read more than an excerpt from each, but all appear to be discussing McGee himself, not MacDonald. Madam Fatal (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Character is notable on his own. Merge would be insufficient. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that hasn't been demonstrated in the article. 23 books and a film, it seems focus on the character is spread out over the articles. – The Grid (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm finding scholarly articles that analyze the character in depth. I was able to access "From Rebel to Reactionary: Class and the Politics of Travis McGee" which is purely about interpreting the character across the novels. A google scholar search also turns up all kinds of promising (but non-digitized) articles with names like "Travis McGee as Traditional Hero," "The Reluctant Hero: Reflections on Vocation and Heroism in the Travis McGee Novels of John D. MacDonald," "Travis McGee-Chauvinism or Chivalry?", "Travis McGee, Tarnished Knight in Modern Armor." (The first few pages of gscholar results are mostly the books themselves, but keep going.) These articles promise an overall analysis of the character, not just the series. The article itself would benefit from some serious pruning but the character looks independently notable to me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Renewables

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

No refs on the page, not clear what sources could exist to show that a trade body was notable and met the standards of en.wiki JMWt (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chino Sing

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

Fails WP:GNG - the sources on the page are not reliable and citing the own artists' website is not reliable. Réunion! 10:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This result can be undone as soon as sources come forward. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Hyok-chol (footballer, born 1991)

Ri Hyok-chol (footballer, born 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. per sources located 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6AQ5

6AQ5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for an extended period of time with no evident basis for notability. Present sourcing are all PRIMARY. Formerly a PROD; dePROD was on grounds that the EL90 guise of this type was notable but there is no statement toward notability present in article. Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this counts but these tubes are widely mentioned in Google Scholar results. That said, I didn't go through all 262 mentions to look for any that are only about the 6AQ5 vacuum; I doubt there are.
These comments would also apply to the 4 tube articles proposed for deletion: 5Y3, 6N3P, 6N24P,and 6P1P. @Pbritti, I wanted to discuss those 4 with you first before possibly removing their PROD tags but I hadn't gotten around to it before this AfD.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: Sorry you didn't get a chance to reach out before the AfD got rolling but I'm glad we can chat here! Frankly, ILIKEIT arguments have a compelling case here. I would be lying if I said I didn't feel a little guilty while submitting those PRODs and this AfD–I'm sure a few people rely on Wikipedia and sites like radiomuseum.org for their hobbyist information. However, I sincerely feel this subject is better suited either to another website or to a list like List of vacuum tubes (as lamentably messy the latter is). If you would like, I wouldn't mind doing some more digging alongside you. I don't have high hopes, but I'm not exactly concerned about my AfD stats. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For starters, take a look at the radiomuseum.org link for this tube that I cite above. It's got a lot of information but not much prose. See what you think.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beam tetrode and 6V6 (which already lists it in the section about similar valves) would also be worth considering as redirect/merge targets - I think they're more likely to be helpful to someone searching for 6AQ5 or EL90. But it's a pretty common valve and there are older books that use it as an example of a small beam power tetrode, e.g. Orr's Radio Handbook (Sams, 1975). Adam Sampson (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Sampson, thank you.
I’ll look at these. I’m not a tube guy but I have many hobbyist friends that are.
I’m generally in favor of densifying Wikipedia - same content, fewer articles. Wikipedia sprawls over 6+ million articles of variable quality. Probably several million of those are small articles that could be condensed into several hundred thousand bigger, more reliable articles - easier to adequately monitor and maintain.
I know I don’t want to redirect the 6AQ5 article to the big List of vacuum tubes article but I’m happy if 6AQ5 gets merged (with no loss of content) to an article about this general type of tube. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - I may be away before this AfD is closed. Based on this thoughtful discussion, I trust y'all to do whatever the right thing is with this article as well as with those 4 PRODs. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Pbritti. I deprodded this one rather than the others as it's perhaps the most likely to be notable. I didn't say it was notable in Wikipedia terms but "well known" and may attract comment because of its European EL90 designation. Also, the valve's still in use. The other reason was out of interest as to how and whether notability could be established for this type of valve; sort of a test case. Rupples (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No individual electronics part number is notable enough on its own to be suitable for an article in a general interest encyclopedia. Article of this type never give any explanations for the reason for the part number's development. Put it in a list of vacuum tubes, use it as an illustration in the history of beam tetrodes, but no need for an individual article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't know anything about the subject matter but in this discussion I see suggestions for a Merge or Redirect. I'd like to encourage seeking an ATD to be VERY specific on what should happen with the content of this article. I don't see a strong opinion to Keep this as a standalone article but could this page title be directed elsewhere? Again, be specific.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that List of vacuum tubes needs some reworking before we can properly start merging such articles, so we shouldn't rush to delete, but if someone can propose a better merge target for now, I'd probably support it. Lastly, I'd like to point out that WP:5 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias. We're not limited to general interest articles. —siroχo 06:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two citations, there are more that exist at the Internet Archive[48]. For example this article[49] is built around discussion of this tube but I can't make use of it to improve the article. As with many older things the amount of online discussion is limited, but a simple search at archive.org will show that this was a widely used tube. I think @Siroxo makes some good points about the desirability of special-interest articles particularly for something like this where there's no obvious redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading my comment, I want to clarify that by saying "a simple search" I had no intention to call out @Pbritti for the extent of WP:BEFORE searches. Going to archive.org isn't essential even if it's a good move for pre-digital era subjects. I appreciate their consideration of the improvements made to the article and of course support the request to withdraw. Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw due to the work of multiple editors to improve this article, located additional sources, and advocate for retention based on an argument that resonates with Wikipedia's objective of freely sharing valuable knowledge. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Catapult centres. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High Value Manufacturing Catapult

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also a criticism of newly added sources, that they are not independent. Please continue to work to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Harkes

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

Some sources and successes, but not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The delete arguments are strong and policy-based. The keep arguments are not, repeatedly mentioning that this person was in something Oscar-worthy without indicating the Oscar's relevance for this individual over many others working on same projects. Multiple relistings have not resolved this. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mitchell (actress)

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

Only one of the refs - the briefest of stories - is about the subject. The rest are about a film in which she acted. Does not pass GNG. Looks like a promotional article, insofar as the main contributor was able to offer a professional photo of the subject. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not happy at closing this as "no consensus" because I find the brief "privacy" concerns from JoelleJay convincing. More discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and agents are aware of this page and have been in discussion with other editors. Elleem22 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoelleJay makes a good biography of living persons point about biographies of minors. Age is a factor here, per Wikipedia policy. This biography of a minor hangs off several sources that aren't about the article subject, but about several movies and list their cast members, and a single source that is. The one source that is is a television interview that is a couple of minutes long. There's nothing in the sources documenting this subject's life and the documentation of this person's works is not multiply, independently, and in-depth sourced. Ironically, the article's very creator is making the case here in this discussion that documentation of this person's work is slim. For a 60-year-old actor with no documentation of xyr life and only mentions as cast members in documentation of xyr works, this would be an edge case. When documentation of a child's life and works is slim, we should err on the side of not including that child in Wikipedia. Multiple in-depth independent documentation of this person's life and works has to exist and the person has to be older than an age that per policy causes us to set the bar particularly high for content. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't s Shirley Temple level child star that's beloved by millions, this is a child that does acting... Has never headlined a major production, nor done anything to rise above the rest. Oaktree b (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She plays the lead role in Ordinary Angels, which was supposed to be out in 2023, but due to the SAG strike, was moved to 2024. She co-leads with Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson; this is a major Lionsgate production. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:8C28:D027:7D4A:5A45 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure I understand the privacy issue. Every fact in the article was sourced from a publicly accessible source. We didn't do any investigative journalism, or even any synthesis of such. Are you saying the L.A. Times is violating the privacy of this actor? The career of actors depends on publicity. If her parents or her agent had any say in this, they'd likely be saying, "Strong keep!!". What is the goal here? Whom are we protecting, exactly? Owen× ☎ 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agent and parents are a "Strong Keep". Elleem22 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NACTOR applies only to "significant roles", which I think is referring to a leading actor or other person with a critical role in the film. This is a long way from that, I think. NACTOR was never meant to override the GNG by giving notability-by-proxy to everyone who appeared in a notable movie. No one here seems to disagree that the GNG isn't met (at least for now), and that's what we should go with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Odia films of 2023. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malyagiri

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

Fails WP:NFILM: released a month ago, but in a WP:BEFORE search I can't find reviews or any significant coverage in reliable sources, in English or Odia. WP:REFBOMB'd with film blog posts announcing its release, but none of them seems to know what the film is about. Proposed deletion contested without comment. Wikishovel (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mushy Yank: I can see blog posts that have "review" in the title, but have you found an actual review in English? Can you post the link here please? Wikishovel (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the (not great) review at Information Bapa, currently in the refs. Again, if it’s judged too weak, at least a redirect should be considered for now. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series#Revan. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revan

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

A character from Star Wars video game and later, few novels and such. Reception is based on listicles ("chosen by IGN as the 12th greatest Star Wars character") and blog-like churnalism comments ("non-notable chournalist X listed Revan as one of the Star Wars character that she wanted in Soulcalibur, another listed the character as one of his favourite Star Wars video game characters", etc.). My BEFORE shows little - yes, he appears in titles of some chournalist media, and some toys including LEGO, related to him, got some niche reviews. My BEFORE shows little - a few passing mentions in scholarly literature that I found do not seem to meet WP:SIGCOV and that do not go beyond the plot summary. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest redirecting this entry to either to some list of SW characters of the game he is the main character of (Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Jewish Press. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Klass

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

Delete (WP:TNT) or redirect to The Jewish Press. Per a WP:BEFORE, not much to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jacob Jimbangan

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

Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. Had fought election but didn't won. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 04:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page has a primary topic for the ambiguous title while all the other ones are included in the same article Ainsworth baronets. The criteria WP:G14 may apply like that for Insta (disambiguation) (deleted by UtherSRG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insta (disambiguation)), as the only one extant Wikipedia page got disambiguated is Thomas Ainsworth. A hatnote on the top of primary topic is sufficient like that in the case of WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 valid entries. The dab is for people searching 'Thomas Ainsworth'. This page makes it as clear as possible who we have information on and where to find it. Just directing readers to the baronets page without clarity could easily lead to people identifying the wrong person in this. Additionally, dabs are pretty cheap. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally there were missing entries, as there often are, and I have now added a 4th entry. Proposing for deletion hundreds of page in this timeframe, without fully checking them other, and sometimes just overwriting them, is really disruptive. Additionally your drive-by tagging of 'oneother', even on pages with 6 entries, is in the thousands within a coupple of days. You can't possibly be chevking these out properly. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Valid and useful dab page, helping readers or editors to disentangle several holders of same name on whom we have some information. PamD 09:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Helping the reader who is looking for, perhaps a Thomas Ainsworth alive in 1500. The dab page shows clearly that none of the TAs on whom we have information in the encyclopedia is the man they are looking for.
    The logic is "Would "Thomas Ainsworth" be a valid redirect to page "xyz" per WP:Redirect and in particular WP:R#KEEP?" If so, and the answer is "yes" for more than one value of "xyz", then a dab page, or complete set of hatnotes at the base title, is needed. Here, where we have useful distinguishing information about two of those TAs, the dab page serves a useful purpose and should be kept. PamD 09:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Mid-Season Invitational. It is up to the editor taking on the Merge to decide what, if any, content is merged. I've seen instances where no content was moved to the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese teams in the Mid-Season Invitational

Vietnamese teams in the Mid-Season Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of those actually cover the subject. The first and third are about Vietnam getting its own independent region in League of Legends esports, meaning they get spots in the Mid-Season Invitational (MSI) and World Championship. The second is covers the 2019 MSI taking place in Taiwan. The performances of these teams in the MSI are better to be covered on their respective articles. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions about possibility of a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completely agree that there's not enough here for an article. I also agree that there's nothing worth merging. In favor of whatever has the consensus to eliminate a stand alone article. (I dont wish to split the vote and have it be a "no consensus".) Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. When factoring in NmWTfs85lXusaybq's intent to withdraw, there is consensus here to keep the disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 16:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page has a primary topic for the ambiguous title while all the other ones are included in the same article Affleck baronets. The criteria WP:G14 may apply like that for Insta (disambiguation) (deleted by UtherSRG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insta (disambiguation)), as the only one extant Wikipedia page got disambiguated is Gilbert Affleck. A hatnote on the top of primary topic is sufficient like that in the case of WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - When there is only one meaning to a term and no article, but an obscure reference to an article with a different name, we sometimes create a redirect. The disambiguation page serves the function of those redirects, for unlikely but possible search terms. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the items on the disambiguation page are only cursory mentions. Do any of them have actual WP:POTENTIAL to become of interest to the readers? Otherwise, the hatnote might as well just point to the Affleck baronets list, it's not terribly difficult to find Gilberts in there. --Joy (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are sufficient mentions of people named "Gilbert Affleck" who are noteworthy enough to have their name properly listed in an encyclopedia article, such that it might be useful to a reader to have them pointed to in the event that Gilbert Affleck is not the subject of their search. BD2412 T 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nasman

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

Non-notable blogger, textbook WP:BLP1E. Longhornsg (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above and Beyond: The Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences

Above and Beyond: The Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been unsourced since 2010. A quick Google search and Google Scholar search have not brought up any reliable, secondary sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. McGregor, Jim (1969-03-23). "Book Review". Montgomery Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "This fascinating 14-volume set of space and aviation reference books has a direct Montgomery connection, since New Horizons, the publisher, is a division of Fuller And Dees Marketing Group of Montgomery. This factual set would be a leather in the cap of any publisher. "Above and Beyond" is sure to become one of the most notable reference works in the country. Billed as the first complete encyclopedia of space and aviation, the set is certainly complete and it is as interesting to read as a good novel."

    2. Mollwitz, John E. (1969-01-05). "Books: Encyclopedia of Aerospace". Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It appears primarily designed for junior and senior high school students, although the entire family would find the wealth of information useful as they watch developments in space and in the super-sized airliners. Biographical data on airmen who have made history is one of the most significant contributions the set makes. One apparent missing discussion, however, is the controversy over who flew first. The encyclopedia gives the credit to the Wright brothers, but it makes no mention of Gustave Alvin Whitehead. ... Nevertheless, the entire set makes a significant contribution to an understanding of aerospace."

    3. Keeler, Robert A. (January 1969). "Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences". School Library Journal. Vol. 15, no. 5. p. 88. ProQuest 1966017596.

      The abstract notes: "Gr 6 Up-- Billed as "the world's first encyclopedia devoted exclusively to aviation and space science," Above and Beyond is avowedly aimed at the school and library market, with a target age bracket of 10 to 16 years. Although older children and adolescents will be the main readers, adults consulting the set will not detect misleading simplifications or condescending writing. "

    4. "Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences". Booklist. Vol. 67. May 1971. p. 707. EBSCOhost 527111769.

      The excerpt notes: "Designed for the upper elementary and senior high school student, [this encyclopedia] will also be of interest to adults. . . . In general the information is accurate. . . Extensive coverage is given to space exploration and astronautics and to the related field of astronomy. Considering the emphasis of the books, coverage of the physical and biological sciences is not so extensive, but it is adequate. . . . Somewhat more than 20 percent of the material is devoted to military applications of aviation and space research. . . . [There are] useful biographies of men and women associated with aviation and space activities. . . . [A] weakness is the lack of bibliographies. . . . [This set] collects in one source much more information on aerospace than is likely to be found in the more general encyclopedias. . . . Recommended."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Cunard! Would you be willing to add these reviews to the page? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton High School (Texas)

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

It's just a high school. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BurgeoningContracting A Google search shows lots of results but any high school is going to be mentioned a lot in local media. Which of those search results are non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you define trivial or independent, as the sources are both. Perhaps you did not look at the "news" tab like I had stated. A Newspapers.com search yields thousands of results going back to the establishment of Dayton ISD in the late 1800s. BurgeoningContracting 17:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting That link doesn't work for me. I don't have access to Wikipedia library. The first result I get in a Google news search is "Dayton school board considering policy change for students who attend games" in the Dayton Daily News. As I said, any school will have mentions in the local news - football game scores, graduations, etc. Is there any in-depth reporting about the school from outside of the local community? Saying why this school is notable? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dayton Daily News is an Dayton-based paper. Not Dayton, Texas. I find it remarkable you are not able to access the Newspapers.com link, but you can certainly see this version. Just because you cannot see or find the results on Google does not mean they do not exist. There are too many examples to link. BurgeoningContracting 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting You're right. So it's not even an article about the same high school, which just shows that having a lot of search results doesn't mean that something has non-trivial, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you it is that you mean by "trivial." I'm afraid this is a case of disruptive behavior to make a point since I am handing you these sources into your own hands. BurgeoningContracting 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting "Trivial" in this case is the opposite of "substantive". See WP:SIGCOV. I have no idea what you mmean by "I am handing you these sources into your own hands". Which sources? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If one is to read the significant coverage guideline, it will read, "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Obviously, both search options I presented, again, yield various results that satisfy this requirement. I will no longer respond to your replies, since it seems this is a case of plain disruptive behavior, more specifically, a case of I Can't Hear you BurgeoningContracting 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting I can't hear you because you aren't answering my question. I have told you that I can't access the newspapers.com articles and the Google search results aren't helpful. What are the reliable sources that provide significant, independent coverage to show that this high school belongs in Wikipedia? If you have some, why not tell me what they are or add them to the article? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────┘
Counterfeit Purses, Your ability to access a source doesn't make a source valid or invalid. If you aren't capable of doing the research, why are you nominating articles for deletion? — Jacona (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona I don't understand the game-playing here. You both claim you have useful sources. If there are sources, just add them to the article. Or post links here. I really don't understand how it is helpful to keep them to yourself. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Counterfeit Purses, I'm playing no game. I'm not keeping anything to myself, I've found thousands of sources, and given you some instruction on how to find them. If you can't find them, you do not have the skills needed to do the job, so gain those skills. I am willing to help, as are others. Competency is required, and you don't seem to have it nor are you willing to get it, so why are you nominating articles for deletion if you don't have the capability or willingness to do the research? — Jacona (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese threat theory

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

This could be a violation of WP:NOTESSAY and is worth a discussion. Amigao (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkana, Louisiana

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

Leeper's place names book doesn't say what this spot is, and the topos show that it is a passing siding on the old Cotton Belt line, straddling the state line. It's clearly not a settlement, just a NN rail point. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found SPC 1890, p. 122 saying that "Alden's Bridge and Arkana are also new railroad towns.". So it's a town. Would that the "Arkana" chapter of Temple 2008 were usable! It explains everything, with populations, postmasters, and federal writers projects; even the fact that this is the same place as Arkana, Arkansas in Lafayette. Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was a town. There's nothing there now. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there is, and Temple 2008, p. 356 even lists it. As I said, it's a damn shame that Robert D. Temple self-published and has undiscernable expert credentials. All that we have in the meantime are SPC 1890, p. 122 and the Federal Writers' Project, which I have now managed to track down (Temple just mentioning the FWP without title, date, or anything to go on), and the somewhat dubious ALTGA 1990, p. 197 saying "several stores, a saw mill, church and a post office". Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Temple (p. 356) says "The town is gone, though, except for the name on a topo map, a UP rail siding, and the Arkana oil and gas field a few miles away in Louisiana." If we are to use him as a source we can definitely put the place in the past tense. Mangoe (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • A UP rail siding and an oil and gas field are not nothing. Ironically, there's excellent support elsewhere in Temple for the claim of it being a ghost town. But as I said, I cannot discern any expert credentials for Temple. You might want to check the article; it is in the past tense. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • "Bossier Parish". Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Northwest Louisiana. Southern Publishing Company. 1890.
  • Temple, Robert D. (2008). "Arkana". Edge Effects: The Border-Name Places. iUniverse. ISBN 9781440101465.
  • "The Towns in Bossier Parish". The Genie. Vol. 24–25. Ark-La-Tex Genealogical Association. 1990.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Arkana was a small town on the border of Louisiana and Arkansas, headquarters of a railroad company, with a school, church, lumber mill, rail station, post office, 1900 census population of 12, a 1920 census of 63, and a 1940 census population of 63. The community was noted in regional newspapers from Shreveport to Bossier City to papers in Arkansas, and the Bossier City Banner had a weekly news column about Arkana, which it regarded as a prosperous, up-and-coming community. I'm seeing over 200 news articles about Arkana from about 1910 to about 1945, when Arkana seemingly fades from history. I've expanded the article; more work is in progress, but this was a notable town, with sources found in the Library of Congress, discussion of the community's resources in state publications in Baton Rouge, and regional coverage in the Shreveport area. I'm really overwhelmed by the number of sources: the Arkana and Eastern Railroad itself could be its own article, given time. (BTW, I wouldn't use the Temple (2008) source; not only is it self-published, it doesn't match what any of the other sources say about Arkana; it claims Arkana was a community of about 500 residents. No other source confirms or even approaches those numbers). Anyway, this article should be kept and expanded further, not deleted: there's no reason to delete an article which can be sourced,. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly was a town on Newspapers Extended, e.g. in the May 1912 Bossier Banner-Progress: [51]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Nice work in finding sources and expanding Firsfron, and for working out how to filter out all the other hits for $arkana$ which I would guess put most people off. (It put me off when I first saw this.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hits for Arkana in Baxter County, Arkansas, and Texarkana definitely have been a bit frustrating. Thanks for the additions! The article already looks better. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Walter

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. No WP:SIGCOV. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full spectral imaging

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

Neologism, single-source spam. fgnievinski (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. This somewhat generic term can refer to multiple unrelated things. This article is specifically about a kind of imaging technology for earth-monitoring and imaging satellites. I did a lot of searching and came up empty-handed for satellite-related papers authored by anyone else besides the author of this Wikipedia article, JFBolton. I did find some other scientific papers that used this term in unrelated ways (example: botany) but they are not applicable here.
JFBolton wrote and edited this article in 2007-2008 and has no other contributions since.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to lack of consensus. I will say that the same Merge suggestion was brought up at the previous AFD back in 2010.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neologism that failed to gain notability in the form described on the page. All academic sources that describe it in depth using the same scope appear to be authored by the same person. I'm not opposed to merging in principle, but it would be a second choice as, after reviewing the sources, I'm confused about the target. Should it be described as a proposed method in Hyperspectral imaging (per sources) or mentioned in one of the articles on Landsat satellites or their sensors as a method actually employed there? If it's WP:DUE there, why hasn't it been mentioned on any of these pages to date? PaulT2022 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist or a possible No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Daring episodes

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

The main article "Most Daring" was deleted due to not having reliable sources. OWaunTon (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Robotics

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

Sourcing does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. The sources I found consist chiefly in:

  • Database entry
  • Blog posts
  • Primary sources from SRI International, Meka Robotics, et al.
  • CEO profiles
  • Acquisition announcements

which is too weak for an article about a business. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nyota, The Peacemaker

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

After a multi-language search, can’t find a source (or even a trace) for anything about this. All other mentions seem to point to this page. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NB. Given the edit history, suspect this was self-advertising from 2011 created by an editor who had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Waterfelt (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. In the middle of this discussion the nominator retracted their nomination so I'm closing this as a Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Business Network

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

This topic does not meet WP:NCORP. I did not see any reliable, independent sourcing that covered the company in detail and is not just a routine announcement like acquisition. The main source that exists, "Long Boom or Bust", The New York Times, is not independent of the subject since it is a profile of its CEO. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. More than enough in-depth coverage found in multiple independent reliable sources, including The Economist (1998); The New York Times article by Steve Lohr (1998); the TIME magazine article (2004) by Chris Taylor. In terms of coverage of its reports, there are articles like the one in Earth Island Journal about the GBN scenario planning for the U.S. Department of Defense. Yes, articles that incorporate interview content need to be evaluated carefully, but the articles mentioned above do include independent observations, analysis, and assessment of the subject, in addition to fact reporting and fact checking. Agree though that the most in-depth article of all, the one by Joel Garreau in Wired, does not count as independent, as the author himself was a GBN member when he wrote it. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to retract nomination based the new sources brought forward. New York Times article is a CEO profile so not independent however. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @बिनोद थारू but you cannot simply categorize articles in broad strokes as "interview" or "CEO profile" and then dismiss them. You have to read and analyze the content and assess what is there. In this case, the article is written by Steve Lohr, a respected business journalist for The New York Times, and when you read it, it's not a CEO "puff piece" like you might find in Inc. magazine; it is analytical and explores criticisms and shows that Lohr took time to do his own independent research and interview other experts for their opinions. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the excerpt from the New York Times article:

    Peter Schwartz is a professional marketer of big, brow-furrowing ideas. By 2020, he says, the internal combustion engine will probably have gone the way of the dodo bird as conventional automobiles are replaced by hybrid cars powered by fuel cells that mostly use hydrogen.

    A telecommunications revolution, Mr. Schwartz believes, is coming even sooner. Thanks to big satellite projects, connections for high-speed Internet, telephone and video will be commonplace in six years or so. The world will be wired, inexpensively. By 2005, teen-agers in villages in developing countries will be chatting on video phones as they surf the Net.

    By 2010, Mr. Schwartz predicts, breakthroughs in biotechnology and gene therapy may enable science to reverse aging and extend life. The prospect here, he insists, is not merely a prolonged old age but living for decades in one's biological 40's.

    Yet these are mere ingredients of Mr. Schwartz's biggest idea, which he calls the Long Boom. Its thesis is that the world is witnessing what Mr. Schwartz calls the beginnings of a global economic boom on a scale never experienced before, driven by waves of fundamental technological change and free-market economics.

    Based on how it is written and how it lends all the attention to the CEO, I concluded that it is a promotional piece for the company. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why you have to read the article all the way to the end! Cielquiparle (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎. Apologies I did not realize there was a recent AFD. Regardless, I must note that the match-up having a cute name does not make it a rivalry – no sources use the term – so it should not be listed at List of NCAA college football rivalry games. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 05:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion Bowl

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

The two teams have played just four games, decades apart. All sources are expectedly routine coverage that any college football games get – just because someone made up a cute nickname does not mean it's a notable topic or even a "series" as described in the intro. Reywas92Talk 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qt version history

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

Exhaustive list of software updates, fails NLIST, WP:NOTCHANGELOG  // Timothy :: talk  01:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bhojpuri films#1980s. ✗plicit 03:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyan Magan Pahelwani Mein

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No evidence of notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Snow White. Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsman (Snow White)

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

Identical set of problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King (Snow White) has. Minor character from fairy tail, plot summary + information on who played him in some modern adaptations, very poorly referenced, no analysis/reception, and my BEFORE finds nothing. There is a bit of coverage of the Huntsman from the modern The Huntsman film series, but not much outside plot summary/casting, although the existence of that franchise makes searching for this already generic name hard :( Fandom has an unreferenced section on character development, that is arguably better than what we have (https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Huntsman_(Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs)). Can anyone find anything to rescue this? The best I find is the use of the character name in the title of this minor academic article, but contents seem to ignore him (or at least my search of the pdf fails to turn anything of use). Otherwise, we can discuss redirect targets I guess... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with the character section of Snow White. There's a lot out there online to find sourcing for most, if not all, of the above. Not sure I understand what this could be a coatrack for. There's just a lot of variations and remakes of the Snow White story. — Maile (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Snow White. Nothing worth keeping as the article is entirely in-universe content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Snow White - Better than the now deleted King article, since this character actually does exist in most versions of the story. But there is still no significant coverage in reliable sources within the article itself or presented in this AFD that demonstrate that they are a character that is notable enough to pass the WP:GNG for their own article. The character's role in the original story is covered in the plot summary of the main Snow White article, making it a good redirect target. The rest of this article is simply a list of appearances of the character in various adaptations, and those appearances are generally described in the articles for each of those adaptations. Rorshacma (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_27&oldid=1188285480"