Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 02	February 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SapientX

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

Refbombed article about an AI startup, packed with references that don’t mention the subject at all, or mention it in passing, or are PR. There are a few refs that discuss the subject in detail so it might be possible to stubify and keep this, but it seems marginal so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and California. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Notability is marginal, and the article’s Promo style is annoying, but its Product Sage does seem to have gotten significant coverage as sourced here. Llajwa (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough coverage on this one such as Venturebeat, Santa Vruz Works, Investor Place, and bnext.com.Royal88888 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a co-founder of SapientX. To date, we have 31 press articles and TV interviews, published 5 white papers, issued 14 press releases and we will be featured in Dominique Wu's soon to be released book on XR. I realize that most of the above is not highly valued by Wikipedia standards.

I would also like to share with you important historical milestones that are not well supported by press:

1. SapientX's conversational AI work began in 2003 under ARDA's NIMD research program. This work was done by parent company Planet 9 Studios and the IP was transferred to SapientX in 2016. Under this funding, we developed Sage, the first commercial conversational 3D character. (IBM Watson also began in the NIMD program.) This can all be documented with valid footnotes.

2. Bruce Wilcox joined our team in 2008 and developed an upgraded AI system later to be called ChatScript and released into open source. ChatScript is the first generative AI conversational system that I am aware of. The press falsely portrays ChatGPT as the first generative AI system. ChatScript was used in our RayGun navigation platform. Customers included BMW, Clarion, Intel, Nvidia and Magellan GPS.

3. In 2016, we developed Mitsubishi Mia, the first conversational 3D character for automotive use.

4. In 2021, we publicly demonstrated the first life-size conversation 3D character in a prototype for Lowe's.

5. In 2022, we delivered Chief, a life-size museum docent, to the Liberty Station retail complex in San Diego.

The point that I would like to make is that we have consistently been leaders in conversational AI and these achievements should be captured in Wikipedia. I can provide documentation of each fact asserted above. I acknowledge that these same facts are not fully supported in the commercial press. So I ask, are press citations more valuable than actual historical achievement? I will be happy to add these facts along with citations, to the SapientX article. DavidColleen (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, we require (a) in-depth (b) analysis/opinion/investigation/fact checking that are (3) clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the topic company. So on the basis that the TV interviews are essentially giving somebody from the company speaking, the white papers are published by the company, press releases are published by the company, and the book isn't published as of yet so we've no idea of the content, that leaves us with the 31 press articles. An analysis of those articles to date shows that they regurgitate the information provided by the company. They fail (a), (b) and (c) of the test above. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HighKing. Yes, I already stated that I understood your evaluation of the present footnotes. I can introduce the above facts to the article supported by new source documents and references. I'm not versed in your rules. Shall I directly add the above facts? DavidColleen (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While it's certainly noteworthy (in the colloquial sense) that someone is developing NLP applications using symbolic AI in the year 2024, I am not convinced it's notable in the Wikipedian sense. Most of the sourcing is passing mentions and I don't see a whole lot of significant in-depth coverage. jp×g 🗯️ 07:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course symbolic AI has its place in 2024. Companies approaching unicorn status like Kore.AI and JustAnswer use the same underlying symbolic NLP (ChatScript). It's as effective as machine learning for intent detection. Earl Sacerdoti reviewed SapientX's NL technology for a fundraising site and said: "the symbolic-processing approach uses programs rather than statistics to interpret inputs. This makes the systems less robust than the statistically-based ones, but completely reliable. This is important for tasks like controlling automotive subsystems, where a language-based control system performing the incorrect task is distracting if not dangerous." And we all know the unreliabilities of LLM's. SapientX blends NLP approaches as appropriate for task. (Bruce Wilcox, SapientX). 90.214.57.60 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first Wikipedia post. I'm a co-founder of SapientX. While it's currently fashionable to use machine learning and more recently large language models for machine conversation, both fail to offer the accuracy and reliability needed for serious commercial applications. For instance, Open AI, in their recent white paper, claims only 78% conversational accuracy for GPT-4 asking the same question 5 times. The core of SapientX's conversation system is ChatScript (symbolic reasoning) which yields 99% accuracy in our internal testing. ChatScript was developed by my co-founder Bruce Wilcox. Unfortunately, there is no standard for testing or third party test results. BTW, we also offer a version of our software that combines ChatScript (for accuracy) and GPT-4 (for its ability to riff).

JPxG suggests that press coverage is the measuring stick for noteworthiness. I disagree. I will relay to you that TomTom conducted testing of what they felt to be the three strongest conversational AI systems in the market; Cerence (formerly Nuance), SoundHound and SapientX. They reported to me that SapientX outperformed the others. Additionally, Gartner recently ranked Kore AI as the top conversational AI system. Kore uses ChatScript. Gartner did not include SapientX in the evaluation as we did not meet their revenue level. DavidColleen (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any non-trade publication sources and I'm not seeing significant coverage of the company beyond the Trump chatbot review. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does raising $2,155,753.95 by crowdfunding 2,798 people make it more notable? https://www.startengine.com/offering/SAPIENTX 90.214.57.60 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. As noted above by a co-founder, there are very little sources and this may be WP:TOOSOON. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HighKing. Your comments help me to understand your evaluation criteria. Using press articles to validate facts works well for topics such as baseball, but for deeply technical topics, such as conversational AI, I don't know a single person in the press versed enough in the topic to write a solid article without the input of someone like myself or Bruce Wilcox. Instead, they write about what is fashionable, such as LLM's this week. There is even large institutional bias, that I have encountered, at the university level. One head of an AI department at a Finnish university to me that "if it's not machine learning, it's not AI". This of course is silly.

Nonetheless, I believe that I can support most of the new facts, listed above, with multiple documents. Is it okay to proceed with this? DavidColleen (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavidColleen, based on what you've said above, you may wish to consider the following. There are different standards required for supporting "facts" within the article to those we use to establish whether a topic is notable. So, for example, "facts" can be supported by *any* source which meets our criteria as a *reliable* source as per WP:RS. Sources that may be used to establish notability need to meet a different standard. Also, different topic categories may have their own guidelines which provide better explanations on what sources will meet the criteria. For companies, we use GNG/WP:NCORP and I've summarised the standards for sources which may be used to establish notability above. Be aware, this current process of AfD is only concerned with notability, not with the facts. Adding more sources to support some of the factual content may not lead to assisting in establishing notability. As you've acknowledged above, establishing notability for specialised companies is difficult because articles in newspapers are often written by journalists who may not have sufficient knowledge of the topic company. Similarly, your comment about the head of the AI department appears (to me) to be directed at the technical area of "machine learning vs AI", not at this specific company. Many years ago somebody summarised our requirements as "If the company is notable, somebody unconnected will have written something decent about it" and that still holds true albeit we've had to clarify what is meant by "somebody unconnected" and "written something decent". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for promotion BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley Scott's unrealised projects

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK from Ridley Scott, which does not meet WP:NLIST; would not be a helpful redirect to main biography. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and Lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, it would not be out of place in Scott's biography, and in that biography, there is no room for it, so it does not look like an unnecessary content fork, especially since everything looks sourced. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meets WP:NLIST. The subject of the list has been the object of coverage as a group. Also, in general, when a very very notable filmmaker has a substantial filmography, a detailed article about his unmade projects, well-sourced, helps navigation and makes sense. Sources added to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly valuable article on an aspect of a prolific major director that's too long for incorporation in his main biography. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list mainly includes notable items. Not a good choice for AfD. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NLIST. Toughpigs (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep, for reasons already stated by the above users, Scott is a prominent filmmaker, and it's useful to cover a aspect of his career (in this case, unmade films) in a separate article as it would seem out of place on the director's main page and since it is a vast amount of information. More than that, there have been countless articles which cover the topic by major publications and websites, which should back up why it's relevant to even have an article dedicated to such subject in the first place. The article also meets WP:NLIST so I see no reason why there's even a discussion of its deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 3:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
~~Maybe not a problem, but you do know that your name does not show in your signature, right?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep per above as it meets WP:NLIST. The 4 sources in the lead alone show how this meets notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing objectionable here either in terms of notability or verifiability. BD2412 T 03:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Dream Focus 12:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
130% Keep, I believe film history and what could have been is an important thing to know when learning about film history. Film in turn is an important part of our history & culture. I'm in the keep. Along with every other director & their unmade projects should people consider deleting those. (talk) 17:30 6 Febuary 2024 (AEST) — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yacob01: Maybe not a problem, but you know that your name did not show in your signature?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: @AirshipJungleman29:. Looks like a Snowball. You don't wish to withdraw in order to save time? Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes CFORK but it seemed apparently easy to gain consensus for it, if one was ever tried. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your comment but more importantly perhaps @Georgethedragonslayer:, you shouldn't !vote twice. Would you please remove your second bold /Keep/? Thanks in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Unopposed. Sandstein 19:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Malecki

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

Only sources are self-published, can't find any sources online. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, failed Wikipedia General notability guidelines. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to National University, Bangladesh#Prominent affiliated colleges. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Burhanuddin Post Graduate College

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

The consensus of the 2014 discussion was keep, based on it being an accredited degree-granting institution. The days when verifiable existence was enough per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES are long gone. The only source that has ever been cited is the college website.

Searches in English and Bengali found passing mentions, an opinion piece that describes its founding (but is not reliable for facts, per WP:RSEDITORIAL),[1], routine coverage and press releases.[2] There is also a pair of stories from December 2023 alleging corruption.[3][4] The scenario is difficult to follow, the principal denies everything, and nothing more has been written, so it's unclear what weight to give them towards establishing notability. Worldbruce (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National University, Bangladesh#Prominent affiliated colleges given lack of significant coverage to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 17:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National University, Bangladesh#Prominent affiliated colleges.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not seeing a source for its affiliation with National University, Bangladesh. Are we sure it's actually affiliated with that school? -- asilvering (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is affiliated.[5]. Redirect is an acceptable alternative, although it raises the question of what the criteria are for inclusion in the "Prominent affiliated colleges" list. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Baldwin

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

Fails GNG and is insufficiently supported by reliable sources Paul W (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry User:HermanDF, but the added citations are only fleeting or passing mentions, not significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Paul W (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, which parts need to be removed to keep the article from deletion? or which parts qualify as independant/scondary?

In other words, how do we keep this article on wikipedia? HermanDF (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. Any significant assertion which cannot be substantiated by at least one reliable source could/should be removed. Reference 1 appears to be a self-penned press release; refs 2, 3, 5-7 and 9 are routine/passing mentions; refs 4 and 10 are from IMDb - which "is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors" (see WP:IMDB); which leaves ref 8 (seemingly brief mentions in a book, which I cannot verify). The subject therefore fails WP:GNG - it is not suitable for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia as Baldwin has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sorry, but, in short, I don't think this can be kept on Wikipedia. Paul W (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help in clarifying Paul. I've removed the majority of the sources and added a reliable source that is independent of the subject. HermanDF (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. The key GNG requirement remains significant coverage. Paul W (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of the references I removed be significant enough? Or what is required to qualify as significant? HermanDF (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. Thanks for asking. I should have explained. WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage 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." Basically, 'significant' is an assessment of the depth or extent of coverage; it will give detail that extends beyond routine or passing mentions. As previously discussed, several of the sources previously used for the article were passing mentions. Paul W (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Captain Raju, I've added missing citations to the article. Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. HermanDF (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage needed to show that WP:GNG is met or to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with nomination, person fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. 1keyhole (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this person that I can find. Being quoted in a book isn't the stuff of notability here and as explained in the comment above, most are trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted‎ per criterion A10. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian People's Republic (Editable)

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

Fork of Ukrainian People's Republic (or rather misuse of article namespace) that should be userfied to User:Numberyy/sandbox or User:Numberyy/Ukrainian People's Republic. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (engage) 17:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Václav Sůva

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG; No in-depth coverage of this bobsleigh athlete on any news websites, and he has/had never received medal record. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub. We can assume his bobsleigh career has ended given that he is 74 years old. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh per the reasons in nom. FromCzech (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FromCzech. Jdcooper (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC, with the only source being a database. A few searches doesn't come up with much else. Let'srun (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G5, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JKLlamera‎. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Advincula

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

BLP of a barangay chairman and councilman, who has not held any notable public office and does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject article is supported with news articles that will provide its legitimacy. Therefore, this shall not be deleted, but instead additional citations must be added. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the local level of office are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass conditional notability standards that hinge on demonstrating the impact of their political careers: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their stint in office had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth. But this is basically just his résumé, and features virtually no content at all about his impact.
And a local politician having the merely expected level of run of the mill local coverage is not, in and of itself, an inclusion freebie either — every local politician has local coverage, so if that were how it worked then every local politician would get an inclusion freebie and nobody would actually have to be measured against NPOL at all anymore. So, again, the notability test for a barangay chairman is not "he exists", it's "he has a compelling reason why he should be seen as a special case of significantly greater importance than all the other barangay chairmen in the Philippines", and nothing of that calibre has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject person is a politician who served as a city councilor for four terms, a vice mayoral candidate in 2019, and mayoral candidate in 2022. He is now an elected barangay chairman. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
City councillors and vice-mayoral candidates aren't "inherently" notable either, and still have to clear the same high bar as I pointed out for barangay chairmen. The lowest level of political office that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article to every holder is the provincial legislature, and there's no such thing as automatic notability at the city level at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator now blocked as the sockpuppet of an already indeffed user. Is this now eligible for speedy deletion under G5? Mccapra (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I am sufficiently convinced that notability can be demonstrated through sources for the subject of this article. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (gas) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beal

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for the following reasons.

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-6900 - primary source and not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria.

2. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199576128.001.0001/acref-9780199576128 - Primary source and it's just a listing so not significant.

3. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/dh/tag/manuscript-studies/ - a blog with no consensus on its reliability.

4. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/peter-beal-FBA/ - the website for an academy that he is a member of.

Nothing that satisfies WP:NACADEMIC and general notability should always come before the alternative notability criteria. Signal Crayfish (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3. Together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gray (literary scholar) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Guest, the third of a series of pointy and bad nominations by a nominator who refuses to accept the validity of WP:PROF#C3 (which Beal passes). If the nominator will not stop doing this on their own they need to be prevented from continuing this bad pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does he pass C3 for Prof, I can't find sourcing to support this. Sourcing is rather scant to be honest. Nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the first piece of text after his name in the article, FBA? It is linked. Go learn what the link means. Also go re-read WP:PROF#C3, the part that says "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source.", and then notice that there is in fact a footnote linking to exactly this kind of source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I didn't understand what it was. So again, how does he pass C3? Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a one line citation is fine, but we need more than that if you want to keep an article here. Do you have anything else besides a one-line listing? That's not enough for the article to be kept. And please keep the snark to yourself. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF as a Fellow of the British Academy: [6]. He also has a festschrift ("In the Prayse of Writing: Early Modern Manuscript Studies: Essays in Honour of Peter Beal"). He also satisfies GNG and BASIC. He also satisfies AUTHOR, with multiple periodical book reviews, such as: [7][8] [9] [10][11][12] [13][14][15]. James500 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps passes Prof C3, but with no sort of extensive sourcing beyond a one line mention in a repository, we don't have enough to keep the article. Perma-stubs aren't really what we're looking for in Wiki Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are now as guilty of both failing to apply our notability criteria, and of failing to apply WP:BEFORE, as the nominator. The FBA link is more than one line. It is already enough by itself to satisfy our notability requirements. And if you want plenty more material to fill out an article (and to satisfy another notability criterion, WP:AUTHOR), search JSTOR for published reviews of Beal's books and peruse the many hits that you get. Please make more of an effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate the thing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there's no reference in the article saying he's an author, I wouldn't expect to find this. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see WP:BEFORE. Notability is based on what is available as sourcing, not on what is already in the article. WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is and always has been a list of his books in the article. —Noswall59 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep re Oaktree b's comment: The thing that matters in AfD is notability, not the size of the article. If the subject passes Prof C3, then it's notable, and shouldn't be deleted. Toughpigs (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we need sourcing, we don't have that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you have already been told, the article already contains sourcing adequate for its content and adequate for our notability guidelines, and additional sourcing is plentiful beyond the article as it stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also asked to be explained how he passes C3. I'm not in the UK so have no knowledge of how important or unimportant a thing is unless you can explain it. You've thrown a bunch of stuff at the proverbial wall, without really explaining any of it for the lay person. Likely passes the AUTHOR notability, but the lack of civility is concerning; we're aren't here to attack ppl. Simply answer what's been asked and let's move on. I have no interest otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I already explained how you could find out the answer to your question: click on the FBA link and find out what the BA is for yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and it didn't make much sense to me, we don't have an honours system here. Not sure what we've accomplished at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page suggests that "here" = Canada. Canada certainly does have honorary membership in academic societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada for a start. As in the UK, they are sometimes written in initials immediately after the name: see List of post-nominal letters (Canada)#Academic orders, societies, academians. The important thing is the selectivity of the level of membership in a society, not so much the way it is written. People with an FRSC, at least, would also pass #C3, because the RSC reserves that honor only for top Canadian academics. Other societies from that list might also pass on a case-by-case basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b:

1. WP:PROF#C3 says, "The person has been ... a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor."

2. Beal is a Fellow of the British Academy, which is a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor.

3. Therefore, Beal — a Fellow of the British Academy — satisfies C3.

I believe that this answers your question. Toughpigs (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page needs a bit of fleshing out but clearly passes WP:PROF#C3 as per David Eppstein and Toughpigs. Qflib (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Cooper (linguist)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary independent sources.

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-11819 - Primary source = directory listing.

2. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/robin-cooper-FBA/ - non independent source because they are a member of this academy.

Fails WP:NACADEMIC because they don't hold a named chair or a distinguished professor appointment. Plus, WP:Pokémon test asks the question, does Wikipedia need an entry for every member of this academy? Some of these humanities people are notable, but many aren't so it seems like the author has applied the pokemon test in the inverse. Signal Crayfish (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes WP:PROF as he is a Fellow of the British Academy, which is inherently notable. Wikipedia isn't harmed by having these articles. CoconutOctopus talk 18:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3. FBA is clearly a pass of WP:PROF#C3. Likely to pass other WP:PROF criteria (because FBA) but a detailed examination would be a waste of time. Nominator should stop their spree of (at least four) pointy and bad nominations of FBAs, or be made to stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:Pokémon test is not a serious argument for deletion. Whether the subject of this article is less "notable" than "an average Pokémon" is entirely subjective and has no factual basis. It's just a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think I've ever seen someone invoke that argument in multiple AfDs before. This is bad practice. Toughpigs (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Both FBA and having a festschrift are clear passes of NPROF.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF as a Fellow of the British Academy: [16]. James500 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quite obvious from the article that he is notable. Athel cb (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gray (literary scholar)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for the following reasons

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-17948 - just a directory so it's primary.

2. The Writer's Directory, vol. 31, part 6 (London: St. James Press, 2013), p. 1220. - Routine writers directory. Therefore, it's primary.

3. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/richard-gray-FBA/ - He works at The British Academy so it's not independent and it's primary.

Fails WP:NACADEMIC because he doesn't hold a named chair and The British Academy is not as prestigious as National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics. Plus, WP:Pokémon test may apply here. Signal Crayfish (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3, stunningly bad and highly erroneous nomination statement. (1) ANYBIO is the wrong notability criterion; he should be evaluated by WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. (2) I see no evidence that "He works at The British Academy". The link given contradicts that, stating his current post as emeritus professor at the University of Essex. (3) FBA is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. The NAS and RS are for scientists; the BA is the corresponding institution to the RS for literary scholars, among others. (4) the nominator is very confused over whether coverage being "routine" makes it "primary" (no). And there is nothing excepting routine coverage in GNG. (5) A cursory search of JSTOR finds many reviews of his books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the post about this on Signal Crayfish’s talk page? I am not sure they really understand notability and may have a battleground mentality. Thriley (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:Pokémon test is not a serious argument for deletion. Whether the subject of this article is less "notable" than "an average Pokémon" is entirely subjective and has no factual basis. It's just a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think I've ever seen someone invoke that argument in multiple AfDs before. This is bad practice. Toughpigs (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. James500 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Weak because the article as it stands certainly justifies the stub tag that was placed on it very recently. It needs some serious work to expand it into something more informative. Athel cb (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Guest

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

Fails WP:NBASIC for the following reasons

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-13901 - this isn't even his profile and the source isn't reliable.

2. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/anthony-guest - this is an academic profile but he wasn't a named chair or a distinguished professor so it fails WP:NACADEMIC

3. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50906/page/5769 - This is a routine press announcement that he passed the bar like many run of the mill lawyers do. Plus, it's a routine press announcement so it's primary.

4. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/51578/supplement/8 just another listing showing another appointment that doesn't meet any of the alternative notability criteria for living people. Plus, it's a routine press announcement so it's primary

5. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/anthony-guest-FBA/ - This source isn't independent because he's a member and it's a primary source. Plus, The British Academy isn't the same as a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics) so again this fails WP:NACADEMIC Signal Crayfish (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (as creator). Guest is one of the leading experts on English contract law; he held a full professor at King's College London, one of the UK's leading universities; was elected a fellow of the British Academy, the UK's national academy for the humanities; and was appointed CBE and Queen's Counsel, significant state honours. He also edited several leading textbooks in his areas of specialism. If he is not eligible for an article here, I am really not sure how many living non-celebrities would meet the threshold. I'm going to address your points in turn.

1. Who's Who is a selective biographic dictionary produced by Oxford University Press, one of the foremost academic publishers in the world. It's inclusion criteria and editorial process is found here and states that:

"An invitation to appear in Who’s Who recognises distinction and influence. ... The holders of some posts, such as MPs, senior judges and high-ranking civil servants, are invited to have an entry as a matter of course, when the appointment itself is of general public interest. For those who do not fit into these categories, a Selection Board meets regularly during the preparation for each edition of Who’s Who to discuss potential entrants. The Selection Board reviews those people whose professions are less rigidly structured, such as artists, actors and sportsmen, as well as professors, scientists and businesspeople. Prominent figures in numerous fields are considered by the Board on the basis of their continuing achievements, and ultimately selected due to their exceptional pre-eminence. Where necessary, the Selection Board consults those with specialist knowledge."

2. WP:NACADEMIC#5 says that holders are presumed notable if "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." We don't have distinguished professorships in the UK and named chairs are very rare, at least in the humanities; the highest academic rank is professor, and in my experience this has normally been seen to meet WP:NACADEMIC#5 for UK academics (will see if I can find some AfD discussions to demonstrate this, but leaving this here for now).

3. This is not referring to him being called to the bar; this records his appointment as a Queen's Counsel (or King's Counsel now that we have a king in the UK), which are "barristers or solicitor advocates who have been recognised for excellence in advocacy. They’re often seen as leaders in their area of law", according to the Law Society. In fairness, I don't feel that every KC/QC should be presumed notable to the degree that they all need articles, but this is a significant professional award which, in combination with his other achievements, cannot be summarily dismissed here.

4. This is the official record of him receiving the CBE, which is a fairly high-ranking and quite exclusive UK honour; it's particularly rare for academics or lawyers (other than judges) to receive a CBE.

5. The British Academy IS the UK's national academy for the humanities and social sciences. Election to its fellowship is a highly exclusive honour; in 1993, when Guest was elected a fellow, he was one of only 36 academics to receive this much-coveted status.

Furthermore, Guest's extensive publication list suggest that a great deal of critical engagement with his legal work should be found in scholarly articles and reviews; I don't think, for all the reasons listed above, that this is necessary to establish notability, but a quick search should settle the matter if others disagree. Cheers, —17:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a subject matter expert with publications going back decades who has been elected as a Fellow of the British Academy. Article can and should be expanded but currently it does indeed demonstrate that he meets WP:NACADEMIC. Thriley (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3. The nominator has made it clear on their talk page that they do not understand or accept our notability guidelines, particularly WP:PROF#C3 (which Guest passes), but their misunderstanding should not be the basis of a deletion nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF. He also satisfies GNG and BASIC. He also satisfies WP:ANYBIO as a Commander of the British Empire (CBE). He also satisfies WP:AUTHOR, with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:PROF#C3. Toughpigs (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NPROF as a holder of an established chair at a major university, NPROF and WP:ANYBIO #1 as an FBA, and ANYBIO as a CBE. @Signal Crayfish: May I suggest you get a little more experience of Wikipedia editing before nominating any more articles for AfD? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. He satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signal Crayfish (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolaita Sodo Agricultural College

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

This subject (not the same as Wolaita Sodo University) fails GNG and NCORP. The citations provided are ROUTINE and my BEFORE search (in English) only found content about the university, not this college. I can't speak to what else might be in Amharic. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ethiopia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Mach61 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)‎[reply]

Christopher Brown (British composer)

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

Fails wp:anybio

https://londonlibrarymembership.b2clogin.com/londonlibrarymembership.onmicrosoft.com/B2C_1A_SusiOrSspr_SAML/samlp/sso/login - just links to a login page

https://www.lennoxberkeley.org.uk/articles/bach-and-lennox-berkeley - is written by the composer so isn't independent or secondary.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095530447 - is a routine discography on a reference site that isn't regarded as a reliable source and has no relationship to Oxford University

http://www.musography.co.uk/Page%202.html - musicography is just a miscellaneous music blog

https://www.britishmusicsociety.co.uk/2024/01/christopher-brown-24-preludes-and-fugues/ - This is a routine book review

This composer also fails WP:MUSICBIO tand WP:COMPOSER because they havent had any significant major label releases, they haven't contributed to any notable soundtracks or performed with any notable ensembles and as far as I can see they have no named chair at a major university. Signal Crayfish (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I firmly believe that this composer article is justified and should not be deleted. It can be strengthened. I have already added two sources which I believe are stronger than what is cited above. I will do my best to help preserve this article. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entry in Grove Music Online ([17]), entry in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, entry in Contemporary Composers ([18]) -- meets WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. For the purpose of our notability guidelines for authors, there is no such thing as a "routine" book review. This article is not about an organisation. A book review can be "insignificant" if it is so brief and short that it is not lengthy enough to pass GNG, but it cannot be "routine". James500 (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can fix the Grove Dictionary of Music link (sorry, my mistake, the link was to my library access portal), though it's a subscription service, so the whole article won't be available. Brown is retired now but was at RAM for 40 years and retains links to King's College. He is a composer of many substantial works that (especially choirs) still perform, so there's a need for reference material. The two main reasons I added the article were that 1) many links to the American composer Chris Brown's entry should actually have referred to the British Chris Brown (I have now fixed them), and 2) The new recording of his 24 Preludes has just come out, and new reviews are likely to come out over the next few months - with other works likely to be recorded as well. He was the teacher of at least three blue link composers and of at least one more that would justify his own entry. There's room to expand the article by going into the music in more depth. On the Lennox Berkeley link, there's no need for independence here - LB was a very famous composer, the proof that he taught Christopher Brown is not disputed. The link was included to help explain how Berkeley influenced Christopher Brown's music.Sfjohna (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oxford Reference link is from Oxford University Press (closely linked to Oxford University), and the publisher of the Oxford Dictionary of Music (sixth edition, 2012 revised). The text shown from the link is taken directly from the Dictionary.Sfjohna (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep: Obviously, a Grove entry is an open-and-shut case for establishing notability. Thanks to all those who have improved the article! Why? I Ask (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata I created a new Wikidata entity so that the Authority Control could be addressed. I added quite a lot of referenced statements before I realised that there was already an entity in existence and linked to the French Wikipedia article. I have now merged these entities into one and tidied up the surviving one. See: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q123574568 SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano De Marchi

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

This biographical article's sources probably don't indicate notability of the subject (not do they show significant coverage), likely fails WP:GNG, and is written more like an essay; there are already draft versions including Draft:Stefano De Marchi and Draft:Prof. Stefano De Marchi. – 64andtim ^(talk) 14:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and Italy. – 64andtim ^(talk) 14:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be a weak keep based on his citations, but I think the existence of a special issue dedicated to him, with in-depth coverage of him, makes the case stronger. As for the existence of left-behind draft versions, I think that is an irrelevancy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor De Marchi runs a research group which does a variety of important work in numerical analysis. A number of his/their papers are highly cited and influential (as one example, the Padua points). –jacobolus (t) 21:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (visit) 17:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Some sources are provided in the article. However, editors did not come to an agreement on whether the level of coverage is sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Zaza

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

Subject fails WP:NWEB and GNG. Many of these citations fail WP:SPS. The Haaretz cite is a mere mention. The PhD dissertation talks little about the subject and are in the footnotes as much as in the body, which is weak. Everything else (ynet, tech.walla, mako, makorrishon) are interviews and so, aren't independent so there's not much for notability of this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article in Israel's most-sold newspaper counts toward notability. It's a SIGCOV and RS description of the comedians/content creators by two journalists, without interviewing anyone. gidonb (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: How? "The "Shugar Zaza" thing about Pokémon undoubtedly draws on the personal experience of Trager and Paz, who even managed to predict the madness that will take over the world more than six months in advance" I don't see SIGCOV there, regardless that the source is RS. And, a single article along with aformentioned dissertation still seems too low for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on analysis of their outputs, strengthening the SIGCOV. Also, did you notice that you are answering to a comment, not to a !vote? It makes your comment that this is just one source a bit premature, doesn't it? gidonb (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"did you notice that you are answering to a comment" Yes. "...a bit premature, doesn't it?" No. Sometimes I decide to let editors cast wrong !votes and say nothing. Other times when I see someone saying something like a given source is SIGCOV and I don't see it, I ask how. I examined each of the citations present and did a BEFORE search ahead of this nomination, so it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to question why other editors would interpret sources differently. Normal people ask questions and discuss. If you take offense at my questioning of your logic, maybe AfD isn't for you since argument is typical in these discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I take offense? I found one valid source that counts toward notability. That's not enough for a keep yet maybe a beginning for the next person. Therefore it was a comment. You have every right to comment below my comment. So do I. gidonb (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the GNG. The sources are the most-sold newspaper of Israel and Israel's newspaper of record. The characterization of the Haaretz source in the intro as a passing mention is a complete mischaracterization. That entire article is about the activities of this couple and how these were received (badly). There is much more coverage of this duo but these are two SIGCOV RS sources that satisfy the GNG. gidonb (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly significant coverage, it's barely half a page long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree. It's a common comment for Hebrew and Arabic sources. These are very concentrated languages. Texts in Hebrew and Arabic become significantly longer in Germanic and Romance langauges, including English. And vice versa. Half a page in Hebrew is SIGCOOV. gidonb (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's just not enough coverage to keep the article. The Ynet article is fine, it's barely half a page long. This [19] also isn't extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Haaretz, Ynet and Walla are leading media. The TV coverage was also made by some of the most watched channels. It is important to remember the proportions of Israeli media and entertainment industry. Sugar Zaza's videos have made very impressive viewing numbers (especially in comparison to the potential of Hebrew content). Their works are some of the most popular and notable viral hits in Israeli web. They also have one of the longest ongoing careers by Israeli independent content creators.

However, the parts about their international success certainly do require additional sources. JamesB007 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the coverage in minimal. That's mroe the issue. Viral hits mean nothing unless we have extensive sourcing talk about them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Per consensus met for GNG after the additon of new sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Mango

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and there is no obvious WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. No consensus in 2005 AfD when standards for inclusion were significantly lower. Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE unless someone is willing to do the work to establish notability - there’s nothing so far. Llajwa (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a look into this and think it will meet the 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself' notability criterion (at least). So I'll keep working on the article to bring it up to standard. Alarichall (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Review in the Glasgow Herald is fine, but that's all I can see that would count toward notability. I can't find anything beyond streaming sites or a bio at the Conservatoire of Scotland where this person works. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I've added references to coverage in national UK papers including The Sunday Times, Metro, and The Scotsman. I haven't done a comprehensive trawl of reporting, but I think that the article now shows that Jo Mango meets the notability criterion 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself'. Alarichall (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage references added to the article such as the Sunday Times, The Scotsman, and The Herald (Scotland). Am exercising WP:AGF as urls are not provided for two of the three aforementioned sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 17:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Diablo

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Their Allmusic biography is a good start. I found this review of their second album. A prog rock site has these two, admittedly more flimsy reviews. Tried searching Newspapers.com to no avail. Geschichte (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the Daily Record review and AllMusic bio. Unfortunately Sea of Tranquility is considered an unreliable source. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Kill Screen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Screen Festival

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

An annual conference held from 2013 to 2016. Notability appears tied to Kill Screen magazine, merge into section there? IgelRM (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Events. IgelRM (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in RS here, here and here under its former name, Two5Six. If this counts as an RS, it's mentioned there as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Vice and PCMag sources (I had already added the Fastcompany source). My first thought was also "Keep" but two5six is a marketing agency founded by Jamin Warren. So I think it needs attention from someone familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (events). Edit: I think this shows that two5six is the common name in any way. IgelRM (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from before the name change don't necessarily demonstrate it's the common name, just that it was once called that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found Game Informer and Fortune. nydailynews describes Warren was founder. IgelRM (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kill Screen. Both articles are short and the Festival article doesn't receive that many page views anyway. Also seems like the festival is infrequently held. Some1 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) 17:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Just because something is has independent notability (which here is fairly loose), it doesn't mean it requires its own article. Having them both split would be detrimental to both articles, and Some1 also makes a good point about how the festival is held infrequently anyways. λ NegativeMP1 06:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the festivals in Category:Festivals in New York City could conceivably be merged to whoever put on the festival. For example, The New Yorker Festival could be merged to The New Yorker. But given one is an organization and the other is an event, I don't see how it is "detrimental". In my opinion, an article like this should only be merged if it's a sentence or two with zero room for expansion. Otherwise, merging removes the possibility of any future development of an article by in essence implying it's not notable to any editors who may wish to work on it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I also think we should focus on Notability (events) and not whether a merger would make sense. IgelRM (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Notability and content are not under dispute but the translation seems to be a problem. I would be concerned that draftification would bring the article out of the eye of those who might improve it. Instead, tagging and/or bringing to the attention of relevant WikiProjects may be a better way forward. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 17:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satsumautsunomiyaryu

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

Direct translation of ja-wiki article with no attribution, possible machine translation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. There are plenty of refs and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. No valid reason for deletion given by nominator. Jfire (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I see no problem with the content of the article per se, or the fact that it may have been machine-translated (rather good quality if so). However, it appears that the specimen has not actually been classified yet - it has not received a binomial (genus and species remain unassigned). See the article here [20], unfortunately in Japanese only. Under these circumstances, I don't believe we should have an article about the fossil. Suggest moving to draft until the taxon has been properly described. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not formally described as a taxon, so WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply. Any claim to notability would be as an individual fossil specimen (it should be in Category:Specific fossil specimens), although I'm not convinced it is notable as an individual fossil (I'm also not convinced that several other articles in that category tree are notable). Can revisit notability of the draft if/when it is formally described as a taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are no particular issues with the content of the article.山登太郎 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登太郎 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This seems to be notable although it could certainly be improved. For all those editors suggesting that it be draftified, unless someone is committing to improvement, this notable topic is likely to languish until it's deleted as a draft. Better to keep it live and allow those who wish to easily discover it and work on improving it in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. DCsansei (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Move to "List of informally named non-dinosaur fossil reptiles" or such a page? Japan have multiple undescribed reptile fossils, such as another plesiosaur Hobetsu-araki-ryu, Since there are many unnamed materials of pterosaurs, plesiosaurs etc from the world, I assume it is reasonable to create page like List of informally named dinosaurs. While this and Satsuma pterosaurs are pretty important for Japanese paleontology topics, but sadly to be honest I don't think it would be enough notable in English Wikipedia until described. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, shouldn't page title be "Satsuma-Utsunomiya-Ryu" instead? See List of informally named dinosaurs for example, name translations are shown like "Futaba-ryu" or "Katsuyama-ryu" there. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 13:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Utsunomiya

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

Direct translation of ja-wiki article with no attribution, possible machine translation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Biology, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. There are plenty of refs and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra; I don't see a notability issue with the article. jp×g 🗯️ 06:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are no particular issues with the content of the article.山登太郎 (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登太郎 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Procedural keep and trout the nominator, where is the rationale? whatever machine translated or not the page is perfectly suitable for readers and the perceived translation-attribution issue could had been fixed in a matter of seconds with a tag and without starting a deletion discussion. At best, WP:VENUE, at worst Wikipedia:Competence is required. Cavarrone 10:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an attributed machine translation (especially of this quality) is not a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. DCsansei (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just needed to clean up machine translated mess. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of informally named pterosaurs. The consensus is established to redirect and move the article content to List of informally named pterosaurs. The redirect can be done after the merging is complete. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satsumayokuryu

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

Direct translation of ja-wiki article with no attribution, possible machine translation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

*Keep. I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. The sources aren’t brilliant but they seem to amount to a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC) changing my !vote after reading other editors’ comments Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Not formally described as a taxon, so WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply. Any claim to notability would be as an individual fossil specimen (it should be in Category:Specific fossil specimens), although I'm not convinced it is notable as an individual fossil (I'm also not convinced that several other articles in that category tree are notable). Can revisit notability of the draft if/when it is formally described as a taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are no particular issues with the content of the article.山登太郎 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登太郎 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Once again, being an attributed machine translation (especially of this quality) is not a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. DCsansei (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as for Satsumautsunomiyaryu and as per Plantdrew. This needs a valid classification before it can be a species article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "redirect" and not "move"? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, will fix. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and move to List of informally named pterosaurs where it belongs. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My preferred WP:ATD here is merge and redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew and Elmidae: Would this be acceptable? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me - can be split off when formally descirbed and sufficient material available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK. Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move to Satsuma pterosaur (薩摩翼竜). Asahi Shimbun articles establish notability. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is if there is another case of undescribed pterosaur that have page though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of informally named pterosaurs A fossil specimen being covered by newspaper articles is not really good enough to have a standalone article, but enough to be covered in the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Again, this article deserves a sufficiently independent article.山登太郎 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striken - you only get one !vote, though you may continue to comment and reply... up to the point of WP:BLUDGEON. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'll be careful. 山登太郎 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically in English Wikipedia undescribed taxa mostly does not have own article. "Nurosaurus" for example, despite somewhat well-known and have decent materials, does not have own article and just have name in List of informally named dinosaurs. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's trying to destroy my article. Please take a look at his posting history. The history of the attack remains. 山登太郎 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I present my editing history here. Regarding the request to delete Satoshi Utsunomiya's article, it was just my misunderstanding, but other than that, it was just a report of this user's problematic behavior, a correction to a machine-translated article, etc., and no offensive intent. The reason why many articles by this user remained in the editing history is because there were many mistakes in the content of the articles, which were often noticed after editing. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs as suggested above. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novus Summit

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

Non notable Summit. As grand as it sound this summits actually lacks any depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from those who attended or those who were honoured. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Heaslip

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

Non notable author. Lacks independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This paywalled article on her 2020 book from NT News ("Tanya Heaslip to debut 'An Alice Girl' at Red Kangaroo Books") seems to be promising, but I'm mostly finding radio/podcast appearances (ABC: [21][22][23] and 6PR: [24]) and passing mentions (NT News and Books+Publishing). Bridget (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also found Eclectica Magazine's reviews of Alice to Prague (2019) and An Alice Girl (2020). Bridget (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good part of these articles from The West Australian [25] and The Times [26] talk about her experience at the School of the Air and also discuss her books. There's also a piece on An Alice Girl in a smaller newspaper, the Stock Journal [27]. Bridget (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 appears to be written by "STEPHEN SCOURFIELD and School of the Air alumni", so it's not independent. 6 is also a primary source that lacks independence because it's based on an interview with Heaslip in which she is liberally quoted. I don't have access to 7, but if it's a book review, that could contribute to meeting NAUTHOR, but I don't think NT News, Eclectica, and Stock Journal are enough. I also don't have access to the NT News source, but from its title, it appears to be a routine announcement. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS ^💬 13:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NAUTHOR and I haven't found enough significant coverage to meet GNG either. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thin covg and unconvincing notability claim. 128.252.172.14 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theory in Practice

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

Tagged for notability since 2022, unreferenced since 2008. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND, no real coverage beyond reviews on fan sites and similar. The dewiki article seems to have a total of one maybe reliable source for the purposes of notability, but I can't find anything else. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unconvinced by the reliability of any of the sources that came up in my WP:BEFORE besides a single article from Metal Injection, which in itself is borderline. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thiha Zaw (footballer, born 1994)

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

I can find coverage of Thiha Zaw and Hein Thiha Zaw but nothing about this much less notable namesake. It was initially a BLP PROD but it was contested with the addition of the 3 sources currently cited in the article, none of which seem to work. I managed to find Soccerway, which merely confirms that he sat as an unused sub for 5 matches in 2019. I'm not seeing anything even close to WP:SPORTBASIC #5 for this particular Thiha Zaw. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, creator is building a ca talog of Burmese football players and while acknowleding sources are a challenge and bias is an issue, in this particular instance there isn't much of a claim to notability either. Star Mississippi 13:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyi Nyi Lwin

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

His name in Burmese is "ညီညီလွင်" and I can't find any coverage that would meet even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, the bare minimum requirement for all sportspeople. It seems his only claim to fame is playing in one friendly match. I'm not seeing any evidence that this person qualifies for their own article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Thike

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

Lack of coverage found when searching "အောင်သိုက်", "Aung Thike" and "Aung Thaik". I can't find evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5, the bare minimum requirement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While the discussion gave evidence of ample sourcing concerning the sackings, the consensus position is that it failed to suggest that the the personnel moves were associated with the counteroffensive. Lacking that comment thread ran afoul of WP:SYNTH. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive

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

Should this article be deleted? It is similar to List of Russian generals killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was once AfDed. It was kept on the basis that there were reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of many Russian generals dying during the invasion. Here are some of them, you can see they indeed discuss the general topic by reading their titles [28] [29] [30] [31].

About this article though I haven't found such types of general sources, they all discuss individual cases of dismissals and do not connect them nor associate them to the failed counteroffensive. See for example these articles [32] [33], they discuss the collective dismissal of six commanders but explain they are rather due to corruption rather than anything related to the counteroffensive and do not mention previous dismissals. In the absence of sources like the ones I described it becomes apparent this article is a WP:SYNTH mash-up, possibly with the so far unverifiable point of view of arguing that failures in the counteroffensive led to dismissals of officers.

By the way, Russian-language sources don't discuss this as a phenomenon either. I made some Google searches and it was mostly about Zaluzhnyi's possible dismissal. Ukrainian-language sources also don't discuss this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see the utility of this list. Certainly a matter of ongoing news coverage. Useful compilation. Carrite (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you then cite an article titled something like "Ukraine has dismissed many military officers during/due to the counteroffensive"? Such articles would exist if it was a matter of ongoing news coverage. What we have so far is a mix of sources talking about dismissals that happened to take place during the counteroffensive, excluding any dissmissals that happened before or after it, without sources making a connection between these specific dismissals and the counteroffensive, this connection is made by this list's author instead. This is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zelenskiy ramps up anti-corruption drive as 15 Ukrainian officials exit Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article isn't titled List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during anti-corruption measures. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, article is from months before the counteroffensive, so completely unrelated and actually evidence for the "delete" side, showing that sackings happen all the time and the ones during the counteroffensive are in no way exceptional. Fram (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see the utility of this list too. A matter of ongoing news coverage. [34][35][36] As for Ukrainian official sources, WP:MANDY applies here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources don't treat this specific topic either. The first source you linked is Zaluzhnyi's dismissal. That is most definitively not during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive.

The other two sources don't talk about the topic itself of dissmissals during the counteroffensive. I will show the titles of the articles I mentioned above that helped the list of killed Russian generals be kept to show the kind of source that I think should be brought here. How the Russian officer elite has been decimated in Ukraine — here are the generals and top commanders killed in action. Which Russian generals have been killed? The key military commanders Putin has lost in the invasion of Ukraine. These Top Russian Commanders Have Been Killed So Far, According to Ukraine. Russian generals face peril as Ukraine invasion intensfies. These actually talk about the topic itself, rather than say X general died at X date for us to synthezise into a list. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR (WP:SYNTH), implying that the dismissals have anything to do with the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive instead of being a normal group of unrelated changes. E.g. the source for the first entry[37] doesn't discuss the counteroffensive, but on the other hand makes it clear that such dismissals had happened often before this as well. Unless sources are provided which treat this combination (sackings / counteroffensive) as a real related notable phenomenon, we shouldn't be the first to suggest such a connection. Fram (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the 12 sources currently in the article make a connection between the dismissals and a wider pattern in regards to the counteroffensive. In fact, on the contrary, one of the sources, instead of the counteroffensive, mentions the "several scandals related to the procurement of equipment and supplies for Ukrainian soldiers" in regards to the defense ministry. Until we find sufficient RS's to make this connection from the dismissals to the counteroffensive, this is OR. Even if we do find sufficient sources, I am not convinced that it can't be covered in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article itself. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. I think we can deal this within the article 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Many media dealt the problem with changing officials so often in Ukraine, so it can be described in the article.

Wendylove (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like others above have said, there's nothing that shows a connection between dismissals and the counteroffensive. The Reuters article about six deputy defence minsters explicitly points out that "such moves are common after a new minister's appointment." Without anything to show a clear link between the dismissals and the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive they're just concurrent events and WP:SYNTH. Shaws username . talk . 20:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per args above. In addition, I don't think this has utility for readers under WP:CLN. I dont see any good merge or redirect target, delete seems to only option. // Timothy :: talk 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ádám Érsek

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

I am unable to find any significant coverage in Hungarian or Slovak media. MY Nitra covers him scoring 4 goals in a match but the article lacks depth on him as an individual. Paraméter is a passing mention in the Hungarian language. Lacks evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Hungary, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Viasat (Nordic television service)#TV channels. ✗plicit 00:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV3 (Viasat)

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

The notion that the channels represent 'one brand' and a shared character feels very WP:OR-ish. The channels are obviously notable but I can't find any coverage for the "TV3 brand name" so this article most likely doesn't meet WP:GNG either. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Viasat (Nordic television service)#TV Channels. It's redundant given there's already a disambiguation page and a list of channels on the company article. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 12:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to above mentioned article. No need for a redundant article.BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Raspas

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

Hasn't played professionally since 2020 and insufficient coverage for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my searches. His name is "Δημήτρης Ρασπάς" in Greek. Phile News mentions him scoring in the Europa League and then going on military service. Since that military service, he seems to have disappeared into the amateur tiers of Cyprus. Phile News mentions him again in 2022 but it's just a transfer announcement with no independent analysis. There are further copied and pasted transfer announcements in subsequent years. In 2023, we have Sport FM and, in 2024, we have Cyprus Times. Transfer announcements that are copied and pasted from the club websites are not acceptable for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hwali. Bold merge of duplicative short pages. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwali (village)

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

merged with Hwali Babakathy (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Zimbabwe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Diving Educators Association

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

Run of the mill trade organization that do not appear to meet the standard for WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Education, Sports, and Florida. Graywalls (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Manama, Zimbabwe. Bold merge of duplicative short pages, no further discussion necessary (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 21:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manama (village)

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

Merged with Manama, Zimbabwe Babakathy (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Zimbabwe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and speedy close. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Village

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

I've tried to sort this article out but most of the sources used to create this article were written by Kris Gopalakrishnan - the startup village's chief mentor. The two remaining sources, BBC and Reuters are reliable but two reliable sources oestensibly liften from a press release do not make this subject notable. Therefore, it fails WP:NCORP 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kind of promotion-based topic. And the sources doesn't have in-depth coverage/details per nom. CSMention269 (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate slop, based on what exists; if somebody finds more in-depth coverage, ping me and I will take another look. jp×g 🗯️ 06:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement with consequences (immigration)

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

The references I checked are either broken or don't support the claims they are footnoting, and I had to remove some potential libel that failed verification. I'm not sure the title represents a term that's used by reliable sources, and it seems like the topic of different approaches to and the history of immigration enforcement is already covered by Illegal immigration to the United States and articles linked from there. This article has been an orphan since 2019, so it seems authors of other articles are not linking to this term, which may be more evidence it's not in widespread use? -- Beland (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Beland (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article not mentioned by outside sources at all, appears to be WP:SYNTH. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Polemical fork of Illegal immigration to the United States. Carrite (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This topic might be notable, per these sources: [38], [39], [40]. However, I had difficulty finding any more sources, and even if there are, the article as currently written is a POVPUSH mess and TNT applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohmil

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

Seems to be a dictionary definition, which is prohibited per WP:DICTIONARY. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to essentially be a part of speech in certain languages, like a verb or adjective, and I'm seeing a fair number of linguistic papers discussing them. Could easily be expanded with e.g. some discussion of how stemming algorithms handle mohmil words, there's two papers on that alone at a quick search. (I also suspect there's likely to be a lot more coverage in Urdu, but I'm too monolingual to confirm that.)— Moriwen (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is pretty much DICTDEF but one would think there must be a good merge target for the information. Carrite (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There isn't much disagreement regarding whether there is coverage that demonstrates this topic's notability. However, there is disagreement as to whether the article as it exists should be scrapped and rewritten on the basis of having been created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. In the course of discussion, there is no consensus as to whether the article currently suffers from neutrality issues, with some editors arguing that these are egregious and others arguing that the article is well-written as-is, with disagreement on these points within the keep-!voting side of the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari soft power

AfDs for this article:

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

The page created by author Ghalbeyakh lacks credibility as the content added by the author on this page is completely a case of misinformation as the topics added by him on this page are incomplete and doesn't give the full disclosure of the matters or claims added. The page is clearly created to attack the reputation of the mentioned country. And not only this page the author seems to have a propaganda of defaming Qatar as he edited multiple pages to spread misinformation. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Finance, Business, Education, Sports, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic seems to be a valid one, and the article seems to be supported by a number of independent, third-party sources that appear to be valid themselves, although this could be rebutted in individual instances. The article might have some neutrality issues, but that could be addressed by finding more sources to address the claims made by others. We don't usually delete articles merely because some of the sources present only one viewpoint. I note that this nomination for deletion is parallel to that for Italian soft power, a much shorter article created by the same author, and nominated for deletion using this deletion discussion as justification. That's probably what the nominator is referring to as "edit[ing] multiple pages to spread misinformation". P Aculeius (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does it even matter who the author of the article is? Because it seems that the deletion discussion is against the author and not against the article. Its an important article and there are enough reliable sources. Medellinir (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've recently been studying soft power in various countries and decided to write this article as part of my research. I've gone ahead and written up this article, using third-party sources I thought were reliable. I know it is not ready yet, but I decided to upload it in its current form anyway so other editors who are knowledgeable in this topic could contribute. I'm hopeful that with collaborative input, we can further develop this article. Ghalbeyakh (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Comprehensively sourced. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of Qatar's use of soft power is extremely notable, and easily passes the general notability guideline. If we want to have some sources listed here for sake of positivism, I'd link these three works, all of which are scholarly or from reputable think tanks (Brookings Institution), in addition to The New York Times writing about it (particularly in post-blockade times). Deletion is not cleanup, and the nomination seems to be a misguided attempt to resolve a content dispute. I'd strongly urge the nominator to withdraw this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware this was created by a now-banned user, but I do think that this is a well-written article, and banned users are not the only users with substantial contributions. As such, I oppose speedy deletion, or deletion altogether. Draftification would be more than sufficient to deal with any potential bias, as it could be edited there and re-submitted through AfC. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The article is notable, has news coverage, and does not have much primary sources. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, Speedy delete. As SirFurBot stated, unless the article is fixed, it will have to be completely remade to fit Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G5 - created by a banned user. Yes, there are edits by a few other users, but these appear to be attempting to remove material to fix the article rather than additions. And yes, I agree that soft power of a country is likely to be sufficiently treated in sources that it merits an article. I am not opposed to some article, but that should not be this article. The problem with keeping this article is that the monster of a creation will very likely always retain the structure that the paid sockpuppet chose for it. The early decisions on a page tend to stick, and so this page will tend to present the subject as the sock wanted it, even though editors will try to deal with clearly problematic sections. Thus if speedy delete is declined, this one needs WP:TNT. Blow it up and let a neutral editor write on this subject. Don't reward paid sock puppetry. I note that there is heavy socking on this AfD too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection and looking at all of the very considerable number of sockpuppets identified, it appears they were all identified after the page was created. Although the user was clearly socking long before, G5 won't apply here. I am therefore content with draftify as a WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I understand it, the author was banned for using a sockpuppet, I think to oppose deleting this and a related article. That doesn't really affect the quality of the article or its sources. Issues with the article's neutrality are not arguments for deletion; others have already pointed out sources, just as good as those in the article at the time of its nomination, that could be used to balance its point of view better. The main argument for deleting it is that it's defamatory toward Qatar, and while it may be based primarily on sources with a negative viewpoint, it doesn't read as defamatory. That claim reads like a demand that the article not contain any facts or cite any opinions that are critical of the country, and that's just nonsense; certainly not a valid basis for deleting the article. P Aculeius (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete: Delete per nom. But I must confess that I am truly amazed by the magnitude and intricacy involved in crafting this Wikipedia page. A perfect example of a state-sponsored Wikipedia page for influencing global opinion. Charlie (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, state-sponsored? There's no evidence of that. If anything here bears the hallmarks of state sponsorship, it's the nomination for deletion! But there's no evidence of that either—just outrage at a topic critical of a country that the nominator doesn't think should be criticized! And that's not a valid reason for deletion. In fact nothing said so far in this discussion justifies deletion. If the discussion in the article comes across as one-sided, then add more sources to present a more neutral point of view, per Wikipedia policy. The status of the editor who created the article is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted; please base arguments on the topic and the article's contents. An emotional claim that the article "defames" a country by citing independent, third-party sources critical of it is not a proper basis for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will recuse myself from this voting process because there seems to be a mix of promotional language and a potentially confrontational or attacking tone within the text, which complicates my comprehension process. Charlie (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian soft power, the topic is certainly of encyclopaedic value, as I suspect articles on most countries' soft power would be. See also Soft power of China. Any issues with WP:NPOV can be fixed by impartial editors. Per Red-tailed hawk and Sirfurboy, I would be happy with draftification as an alternative to deletion if the impartiality concerns are deemed too significant. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: The neutrality of this article on Wikipedia is questionable as it appears to contain negative content that could be seen as defamatory towards a particular country. Additionally, there are concerns that the article has been manipulated by selectively including only partial information. Although the article may rely heavily on sources with a negative perspective. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.188.127 (talk • contribs)

This is a very suspicious comment coming from an anonymous user with no recent editing history, and apparently no grasp of Wikipedia policy (for instance, signing comments, or citing specific policies rather than a blanket reference to all of them). Just as in the original nomination, there are no specifics: what information is "partial" or "incomplete"? Is anything in the article incorrect or unverifiable? We don't delete articles because some (or all) of the sources cited have a negative view of something. The remedy for NPOV issues is to add other sources for balance; the remedy for "partial information" is to add more. This comment presents no valid, policy-based rationale for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: In the "Overview" section, criticism is mentioned regarding sports washing during the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar. However, it does not include FIFA President Gianni Infantino's statement. Additionally, some missing arguments showcasing that Qatar's human rights record is comparatively better than Russia and China (who faced less criticism for similar issues when hosting major sporting events). This evidence highlights a one-sided portrayal of based nature of the author. As there are numerous unaddressed aspects in this article, it is difficult to contribute to each statement. Therefore, I support the deletion of this page. Morgan1811 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are valid reasons for deleting an article. They are reasons for improving it by adding content and sources that you think will provide a more neutral point of view. "This criticism is unjustified because others are more deserving of criticism" is not an argument for deletion, because the validity of sources and their contents does not depend on a comparison of what could be said about other subjects. P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page falls under G3 (Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes) as the whole page seems misinforming about Qatar. Morgan1811 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it's obviously neither vandalism nor a hoax, this rationale for deleting the article is invalid. P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can be categorized as pure vandalism, as the created page intentionally deceives readers and/or editors by providing manipulative and misleading content. Morgan1811 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "vandalism" means. The claim that the content is "manipulative" doesn't make sense; there is nothing wrong with stating facts or citing what sources have said merely because they might persuade someone to believe something. The only argument here is that the article is one-sided, and that's not a reason for deleting it. That's a reason for improving it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, policy-based consensus is that the topic is likely notable, but the question remains whether the current content should be deleted for having been written by a now-blocked sockfarm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read several articles on the subject and thanks to this article I was able to see a more comprehensive picture. It is necessary to add more content to the article, but there is no doubt that the article must remain. It doesn't matter who created it, what truly matters is the current quality of the content within it.Rajoub570 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~: Wikipedia has a policy of removing defamatory content as soon as it is discovered. Defamatory content, sometimes referred to as libelous material, has a reasonable chance of harming the reputation of an individual or organization and may put Wikipedia in legal trouble. And neutrality of this article as we can see is questionable, there are many parts where the now blocked user has added the information which is no doubt fully sourced but may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, which is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) ‪[reply]
As the nominator, your delete !vote is assumed. You don't need to state it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you are only allowed one !vote per AfD, I have taken the liberty of striking through this one. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name which person this is defaming? If there is content that defames a person, it should be removed, but I frankly don't see any upon another read-through. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me explain for instance this paragraph from this article "The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar was accused of being "sportswashing," using sports events to improve a country's image. Qatar faced criticism for its alleged mistreatment of migrant workers and was accused of using the World Cup to divert attention from these issues. Qatar's investments in sports extend beyond the World Cup, with significant stakes in football clubs and sports broadcasting.[3][4][5]"

The article contain only this much information which can mislead the readers perception about a country. "There’s a further information from the Wikipedia itself from page 2022 FIFA World Cup SECTION Bidding corruption allegations, 2014 “In 2014, FIFA appointed Michael Garcia as its independent ethics investigator to look into bribery allegations against Russia and Qatar. Garcia investigated all nine bids and eleven countries involved in the 2018 and 2022 bids.[387]

At the end of the investigation, Garcia submitted a 430-page report. The FIFA governing body then appointed a German judge, Hans Joachim Eckert, who reviewed and presented a 42-page summary of the report two months later. The report cleared Qatar and Russia of bribery allegations, stating that Qatar "pulled Aspire into the orbit of the bid in significant ways" but did not "compromise the integrity" of the overall bid process.[388]

Michael Garcia reacted almost immediately, stating that the report is "materially incomplete" and contains "erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions".[388]

In 2017, a German journalist Peter Rossberg claimed to have obtained the report and wrote that it "does not provide proof that the 2018 or 2022 World Cup was bought" and stated that he would publish the full report. This forced FIFA to release the original report. The full report did not provide any evidence of corruption against the host of the 2022 World Cup but stated that bidders tested the rules of conduct to the limit.[389]”

According to Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, prior to the tournament, "the new Kafala system tranche of law will put an end to Kafala and establish a contemporary industrial relations system."[356]

and this paragraph is from section Migrant workers

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has defended Qatar's decision to host the tournament.[357]Others have asserted that Qatar has a better human rights record than Russia and China, which were subjected to less harsh criticism for the same problems when hosting important athletic events in the years before the tournament.[358]

There are many instances where this article lack further and proper information which can mislead the readers and there are numerous pages containing the proper information that's why I don't think so that this page is required, as at first place this is created by the user already blocked because of vandalism. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reasons to add additional sources placing what you feel are one-sided claims in context, not reasons for deleting the article. They do not "defame" a person; they present criticisms of state actions or motives, which may or may not be rebutted by other sources—some of which you're citing here, but not, evidently, adding to the article. It would be inappropriate to delete an article merely because some of its claims support criticism of a government. That's a content issue that should be resolved by adding more sources and context.

Also, the assertion that the article's creator was blocked due to vandalism seems to be incorrect: as I read it, he was blocked for abusing sockpuppets. However, unless the reasons for the block are germane to the content of this article, they shouldn't determine whether the article is kept or deleted. Misconduct by editors is not usually grounds for deleting all of their contributions to the encyclopedia, nor is whether the editor's point of view toward the subject of the article was positive or negative. While neutrality is a core policy of Wikipedia, editors are free to cite sources that are critical of an article's subject: neutrality does not mean that the sources cited must not have any opinion. Any editor may add sources that might present a more balanced view.

This article should not be deleted unless it is about a non-notable or non-encyclopedic topic, or so badly written that it cannot be salvaged; and none of these appears even remotely to be the case. The topic is notable and encyclopedic, and can easily be improved as explained above. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with P Aculeius here. Of course, this is a topic that will excite different viewpoints. On such topics, Wikipedia provides the strongest possible entry when editors with competing viewpoints collaborate towards the shared article, not drag articles through processes like AfD.

@Isouf Qaleed: Sirfurboy above suggested draftifying the article, so that editors can work on it in an incubated space, especially on more problematic sections that violate the impartiality expected of Wikipedia articles. Once the article is ready, it can then be returned to the mainspace. How do you feel about this suggestion? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't ask me, but I think the article is fine where it is, and can be worked on in mainspace. I understand if other editors disagree. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I agree – or more accurately – I think if we had each expended the same time and energy on the article as we have done the AfD, we wouldn't be still here discussing it.) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable, encyclopedic, and the article can be salvaged. The reasons for deleting it aren't valid, they are reasons to improve the article, which I agree needs to be one. However, AfD discussions aren't for cleanup. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article probably passes WP:GNG. However, I'm going to vote delete on WP:IAR grounds. This is part of an undisclosed paid editing operation (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TronFactor) that seems to involve the ongoing compromise of accounts. We should disincentivize hacking operations in Wikipedia, and not reward this group, which is an ongoing threat to the project. We should treat this in a way analogous to WP:G5. MarioGom (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article unquestionably is about a notable topic. But the sockpuppet investigation doesn't mention anything about undisclosed paid editing. And creating sockpuppets doesn't involve "hacking". Is there any discussion or evidence of undisclosed paid editing in this case? I can see from the tone of the article that the author possibly had an axe to grind, but there does seem to be at least a good faith attempt at moderation or the inclusion of sources that both are and aren't critical of Qatar's use of "soft power". I'm definitely an inclusionist, so it was always going to be hard to convince me to vote "delete". But if there's evidence that the original author was paid to write an article and tilt its point of view in a certain direction, I'd like to know what it is. P Aculeius (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the investigation? The sockfarm had some very old and unused accounts that were either hijacked or else were sleeper socks for a decade. It took hours of admin time to work through. This is not some guy popping in a new subject for no reason. Significant sockfarm resources were deployed, probably in the full knowledge that we would likely be reluctant to delete something that looks like a complete sourced page. It should not be in mainspace, and deletion remains my strong preference. Don't underestimate the intelligence of those spending that much resource to game the system. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Other than the behavioral evidence, at least two checkusers noted there appears to be technical evidence of account compromise. This is spelt out in the investigation I linked and I have also reported this to WMF Trust & Safety team. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words "undisclosed paid editing" do not occur in the sockpuppet investigation, so it seems reasonable to ask for an explanation and evidence. That some of the sockpuppets are old and have gone unused for years doesn't really tell me anything about payments. The idea that some accounts were "hijacked" by others could be plausible, but even if demonstrated—and I'm not sure that's possible, it doesn't go toward anything in this article.

This article is about a notable subject, and it appears to be well-sourced. Although the author may have used several sockpuppets to link to it, none of the contributors to this article appear to be other aliases of that author, and substantial editing has been done by other editors, while the original author and his known sockpuppets are blocked. Nothing about the article seems to be beyond the reach of ordinary editing to improve or correct. Were the articles that the sockpuppets linked to it wrongly linked, or is the only issue that someone used sockpuppets to create the links?

I see a lot of inferences and assumptions being made about the author and his motivations, but even if we suppose they're all true, there is nothing unsalvageable about the content this article. This is not the fruit of the poisonous tree: an article can be started for the wrong reasons, by someone who ignores policies such as verifiability or neutral point of view, and still be worth keeping and improving—as a number of non-sock editors have already done. Dynamiting an article just to prove a point about the author really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. P Aculeius (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks like criticism of Qatar (note there is Criticism of Israel, perhaps merge or rename. IgelRM (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although much of the article is critical of Qatar—it's about the use of "soft power" by Qatar, which isn't simply a list of grievances. In fact, it would be hard to justify an article that solely consists of grievances, even though I can understand why some might exist. But this article isn't solely critical; some of what it says is neutral at worst. If its focus stays on "soft power", then it might contain positive things, or at least mention praise by some sources for the way it exerts "soft power". For instance, by acting as a peace broker in the current Israel-Hamas conflict. I think that would get lost if the title were changed to indicate only criticism, or if the article were merged into something else (and what, BTW, might we want to merge it with?). P Aculeius (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft power#Examples would be a direct merge, but I see that would certainly need significant shortening. I suppose Criticism of Israel is more of a section split out by article length. But the Soft power article currently barely mentions Qatar. I somewhat struggle with soft power name, diplomacy would be neutral while soft power seems to have a generally negative connotation. I see there are also Italian and Chinese soft power articles but both don't seem to justify there separate existence in my opinion. IgelRM (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article just needs a clean up to remove potential bias but otherwise passes GNG Mr Vili talk 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep per consensus on the new additions onto the article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suphalak

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

Only one non-primary source about the breed and it's a dead link excluded from the Wayback Machine. Doesn't meet notability even with the mention as it's just someone's attempt at creating a cat breed, all the well sourced information is unrelated to the supposed breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Copying my note from the talk page: "From what I could find, the position that Suphalak is distinct from Burmese indeed appears to come from people associated with TIMBA. But independent secondary sources have covered their breeding attempts and efforts to register the breed, at least as lately as 2022, so the original research concerns can be remedied by trimming the content down to what has been published. As the article mentions, most other people in Thailand just treat the name as a synonym for Burmese, but it takes the TIMBA's position as fact so that's also an NPOV issue." --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources include Nation TV[41] (2015), Matichon Daily[42] (2016), The Standard[43] (2017), Thai PBS[44] (2021), and Channel 8[45] (2022). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Thai so I can't give much input on these sources. I looked at the Thai article and it appears to be just about the Burmese itself.

I think the information would be better off put into Burmese (cat) as it doesn't even seem to be recognised as distinct aside from this TIMBA. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging SMcCandlish, who raised issues with the article back in 2019. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all things, I'd suggest to redirect without prejudice to Burmese (cat) for now. There are probably enough secondary sources that have reported on TIMBA's position to support a much trimmed down version that properly balances the viewpoints, but until someone makes the effort to do that rewrite it'd be better to just point the name to what most other people use it for. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and summarize (from the sourced material, not from the entire article most of which is unsourced), but merge that to List of experimental cat breeds, since there is no evidence cited in our article about what the foundation stock was, including whether it was Burmese at all. What's happened here is that legendarily, there were solid copper-colored cats in the region mentioned in a work of very uncertain date (1351–1767). Modern breeders have attempted to "recreate" this alleged landrace variety as a new standardized breed, from stock they are cagey about. But their claims that this is "an ancient breed" going back to the Ayutthaya Kingdom cannot be sustained; this is typical breeder marking nonsense. Next, our own material has gotten a bunch of junk mixed in, including contradictory passages (first a claim that people were "confused" into thinking that the Suphalak was solid-colored and then a "correction" that it was solid colored), a bunch of name-dropping of individual non-notable breeders (more marketing), plus non-neutral material like personal-opinion claims about what a "proper Suphalak" is, and a bunch of unsourced claims about their genetics, etc. The fact that there are a grand total of six cats in the breeding program is not actually encouraging that this passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE at all, though a summary paragraph at the experimental breeds list would arguably serve readers better than no information at all, since people are apt to run into mentions of this at cat-related clickbait sites and want more details. PS: This single-breed club trying to establish the breed is by definition not WP:INDY and is not a reliable source for anything but WP:ABOUTSELF claims (e.g. what they say their breed standard is, how many cats are in their breeding program, etc., but not claims of antiquity or other potentially controversial material). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment support SMcCandlish on redirect and merge to experimental cat breeds list.

Traumnovelle (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Treatise on Cats, the historical written source where the name comes from, might be another potential redirect target, though ideally it should be expanded to actually mention the cats mentioned in the text first. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which redirect target is best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the breeders have stopped their efforts it's less appropriate for List of experimental cat breeds. There are no failed/forgone breeds listed in the article I believe.

Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking further into this, I would oppose redirecting to List of experimental cat breeds, as that would imply a rather oversimplified reductionist view that the name refers only to the newly created breed, when in reality it's an old name, the understanding of which has been quite actively evolving, both in Thailand and among Western breeders. The name is recognised by The International Cat Association, who discussed using Suphalak cats from Thailand (as the term was understood in 2010) for outcrossing to improve genetic diversity in the Burmese breed.[46] There's more info on this at Messybeast.com,[47] which can probably be considered a self-published expert source.
All that said, ideally the article should be rewritten to provide a proper overview covering the history, the evolving terminology, and the relationship to the Burmese breed, in a neutral, descriptive tone. Taking another look at the article, I don't think it's so bad that the current page needs to be removed in the meantime, so I'd be okay with either ~~keeping or temporarily redirecting~~ to Burmese cat, as I mentioned above. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is still not clear where to redirect to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disambiguation? They may be looking for mentions of the historical cat or they may be looking for the modern recreation attempt. There's no distinction between the historically mentioned cats and the contemporary experimental breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there's no distinction suggests that this should be a WP:broad-concept article rather than a plain disambiguation page. In any case, I don't think the re-creation breed needs to be a separate article. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my position to keep. I've added some context to the article that I believe adequately addresses the issues I raised above for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The progress towards consensus has stalled a bit as a prior redirect !vote has been updated to keep. The article has been edited since nomination, it would be helpful if commenters decide if reassessment is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If I saw this before seeing the recent changes, i probably would have !voted to draftify or redirect, but the article looks to be in good shape now. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent changes which clarify its position vs Burmese cat. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 11:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Coalition Against Pneumonia

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

Non-notable organization, promotional article. All of the sources in the article are journal articles about pneumonia. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Organizations. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The tone of the article expresses promotion-based. No significant sources were found. CSMention269 (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rubenstein (activist)

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

This person is not notable. Most of the article is given over to promotion of some causes. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No actual significant coverage on the article. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Okoslavia (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian soft power

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Italian soft power

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

This page is created to defame the the country mentioned in it and not only this page but the author Ghalbeyakh of this page created and edited multiple pages to defame the respected parties such as Qatari soft power, Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States, Soft power and more. These are the pages edited by the author which seems to have a propaganda against a nation/party. some of his edits are marked as vandalism already. This author particularly seems to harming the authenticity of the Wikipedia policies. I would like to have a chance to prove this. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired the malformed syntax in the header (and somehow, I don't think using substitution was intended in that manner, anyway). No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Language, Architecture, History, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first glance this looks like someone's college term paper, but the citations already in the article demonstrate that "Italian soft power" and "Italy's soft power" is a headline term of discussion in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't agree with the nominator that this article defames Italy; on the contrary. Persingo (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Persingo says, the article appears to be supported by valid sources, and I don't see anything defamatory here. If the author has vandalized other articles, that can be taken up there. P Aculeius (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like I wrote in the deletion vote for Qatari soft power, I have recently been studying soft power around the world and decided to write this article as part of my research. I've gone ahead and written up this article, using third-party sources I thought were reliable. I know it is not ready yet, but I decided to upload it in its current form anyway so other editors who are knowledgeable in this topic could contribute. Ghalbeyakh (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should probably be downgraded to start-class, but the topic is certainly of encyclopaedic value, as I suspect articles on most countries' soft power would be. As a WP:ATD, I can't see an obvious target for a redirect or merge (Foreign relations of Italy might come closest). See also Soft power of China. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a legitimate topic in foreign affairs, and it seems to be decently cited. The citations in the article show that it is notable, and I'm frankly not seeing any WP:NPOV issues in the present text. And, even if there were, when editing can get rid of them, and the topic is notable, then we should edit rather than delete the whole thing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier for the closing administrator, three sources that demonstrate SIGCOV may include "Italy's 'soft' Power" (a chapter in an academic history book about modern Italy), pages 390-393 of "Culture and identity, basic reference for European and Italian diplomacy" (an academic journal article), and "The Italian language: soft power or dolce potere?" (an academic journal article analyzing aspects of Italian soft power relating to the Italian language). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (Canada)

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

Fails WP:ORG. All sources given are primary sources and the few mentions of the organisation in reliable sources are trivial. Yue🌙 05:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article below because it covers the same organisation but during its "organising stage", i.e. Maoist jargon for "We don't have enough people yet to make an organisation function." No sources given, and not even trivial mentions by reliable sources.

Revolutionary Communist Party (Organizing Committees) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yue🌙 05:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom

. Okoslavia (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John of Ibelin (died after 1250)

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

No indication of notability, no sources given. Even the name doesn't disambiguate correctly from John II, Lord of Beirut, and all sources I can find are about other Johns of Ibelin (often either the aforementioned or John, Old Lord of Beirut). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Cyprus. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 10-minute search for sources at the usual locations only finds incidental mentions as part of the Ibelin house family trees. Page created in 2008 with a request for sources (infobox) present on the page since 2008... I doubt strongly this page meets notability criteria for an individual page - Mention as a member of the family tree is already present on House of Ibelin, which appears sufficient. Shazback (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology of the Holocaust

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

This is a personal essay written that largely summarizes Caroline Sturdy Colls' excavation of Treblinka. I'm quite surprised that it's lasted this long, but I hesitated in PRODing it because I thought something could be salvaged out of this once the literal essay ("I hope to present a deeper understanding of...") has been deleted. Kazamzam (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. The topic may be notable, but summarizing a single academic article in this style is not the correct way to write encyclopedic article. Ping User:Buidhe for their 2c (and maybe they can rewrite and rescue this?). PS. I thought about voting merge to Treblinka extermination camp, but lack of footnotes hurts :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General references aren't ideal, but since when did using them become a reason to discard sourced content? – Joe (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Good point to consider (if moot now given the rewrite): WP:APLRS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I did vote against it! – Joe (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the rewrite, the article seems fine. Switching to keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article covers a topic that should be part of either Caroline Sturdy Colls or Treblinka extermination camp. The latter already has a already a section for archaeological studies, which clearly mentions these archeological surveys and findings, referenced by a BBC article authored by Sturdy Colls. I don't think there is a significant amount of information to be taken from this page which is not already included or has been considered by editors beforehand on either page. Shazback (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a notable topic and it encompasses more than just Colls' work on the Treblinka camp.[48] Both the essay-like tone and reliance on a limited number of (perfectly good) sources are surmountable problems and deletion is not cleanup. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with Joe Roe on this. Clearly a notable subject, a surfeit of sources is available eg [49][50][51] and more. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Following comments by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) & Doug Weller (talk · contribs), and after reading through the sources they found, I have rewritten completely the page. If not relevant / suitable it can be reverted, but I think this is a better basis to improve the topic in the future than the version submitted for AfD. I am striking my !vote above for clarity. Shazback (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shazback Much appreciated. Always great to see someone being so constructive. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Bee Foolish

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

Unsourced music bio from 2007. WP:BEFORE yields very little, and far from meeting WP:MUSICBIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass GNG. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Muhammad Mohsin Government High School, Rajshahi

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

School fails NCORP. The Banglanews24 cite is a mere mention. Banglapedia says nothing about this school. The Ministry of Education cite is ROUTINE. The first academia.edu cite only mentions this school; the second says nothing at all about it. The Prothom Alo and Daily Campus are ok but I think that's too little for GNG. I worry this is a stealth advertisement, as most of the content is not cited. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman The second academia.edu cite has used for Reformed Madrasah Scheme. This school was included in that scheme. And Banglapedia cite has used for Commission on National Education (1958) and the school was also included that commission. Is it not normal not to mention the school name separately? Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a reformed madrasah scheme. We need sources that are actually about the school, itself per WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman The sources is given for the scheme or commission which is mentioned in the article not for the school. This school was under that scheme or commission. -- Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2024-01 ✗ deleted ← 2024-01 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 03:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks fine. While I note the nominator's concern over advertising, I'm not seeing evidence. It's a state school, so do not immediately see a promotional angle. It's been written differently from most AfD'd schools, which tend to concentrate on facilities offered. This provides content on the school's history/background. Granted, sources are not great but one should take into account the possibility that offline Bengali language sources exist especially given the school has been in existence in various forms for 150 years. Based on this and existing sources, I'm giving a weak pass of the GNG. I'm also aware there's an apparent conflict of interest. The article creator's user page states they previously attended this school. I don't on the face of it see this as a big problem, given the way the article's been written. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the information mentioned in the history section is not cited by any online or offline source. The editor is trying to add and keep a website as the official website, which is made by the alumni of the school. Significant coverage was not found. GoddessFG (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has written impartially or neutrally. I don't see anything promotional here. In the article editors focused on its history and I think it is connected with the education history of Bangladesh to a great extent. It is right that some content is not coverd by reference. This article is translated from Bengali Wikipedia where many sources are not cited, but the editors have cited some source here. In this case, the article can be kept by removing the unsourced materials and keeping the sourced material. And I can't see any evidence about the website being unofficial and website is not used as a source in the article. As the website's domain is a country top level domain prefixing .edu so, I don't see any possibility of it being unofficial. That's not a big problem. Cihangir (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — RX720 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Citation added to some information and unsourced information has been removed. Farhansnigdho (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Daily Campus and Prothom Alo sources are providing significant independent coverage. Arman ^(Talk) 10:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvaco

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

100% of references are press releases, i.e., then don't ensure notability per our standards - Altenmann >talk 02:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [52] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [53] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [54] ~ A412 ^talk! 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [55][56] Mach61 (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient. A redirect may be created as a matter of editorial discretion, but there's no clear target here. Star Mississippi 14:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BAA Training

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news and annoucements scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, Aviation, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good referencing meeting basic media coverage requirements and generally notable company as the biggest on Europe airplane pilots training establishmnet; also checked local newspapers in Lithunian and found coverage in the best local media like 15min, vz.lt, etc. Definitely keep it, but the language and tone should be changed to meet Wikipedia-neutral language. I also added some good sources and events to the page. BoraVoro (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post WP:THREE reference so we can see what references you found, because I don't think there is anything apart from the usual trade PR and press-releases. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already added to the page BoraVoro (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both those references you added to the article fail WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. The first one states: "Textron Aviation says on its website that the contract was signed during last week's", so that is a press-release. The second one "Vytautas Jankauskas, executive director of BAA Training Vietnam, said in the announcement." fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. I think your a UPE dude. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sources are more like press-releases. But, I didn't tell I added three best sources (as you may think), but I added some new sources to the page. My fault that reply sounded like "I did find and added". And please refrain from blaming me in some sort of promotion, as it is even prohibited by by Wikipedia. I think there is some rule, that the article and sources should be discussed, not people. BoraVoro (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.elnacional.cat/es/tecnologia/los-pilotos-de-air-india-se-formaran-en-lleida-alguaire_1112328_102.html kind of good source. But I'm not sure if it passes Orgind BoraVoro (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nothing but an advert. - Altenmann >talk 02:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:Promotion, simple. CSMention269 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article setting out the wares of a training subsidiary company. Announcement-based coverage is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, as is coverage mentioning the firm as a training provider, such as the El Nacional item mentioned above. Fails WP:NCORP; a redirect to Avia Solutions Group where it is briefly covered could be an option. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may need to be shortened a bit to meet encyclopedic requirements, but there is no reason to doubt the article's significance --Well I dont (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA and likely a UPE. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Maybe the whole article is UPE as assumed by creep. Okoslavia (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 19:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Football League

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Pakistan. Joeykai (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur that it fails WP:GNG. Also a regular target of disruptive editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistani football league system as possible search term. Giant Snowman 13:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is a good WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
It's not mentioned at the target article, so isn't a good place to redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I am not sure I truly understand this nomination, there are lots of different sources for the league, databases, primary news sourcing, teams, sponsors, other stuff. Google had lots of different things for a 21 year period of history. So I am myth'ed by the nomination. I feel it is better to redirect points to this article. And the article could possibly be expanded on. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, why would you redirect an article that already has some sourcing to an article with no sourcing at all. I don't get that logic either. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and don't see value in redirecting to Pakistani football league system, where this league isn't mentioned. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Semi-professional league with no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Altenmann, How are major media outlets such as The Nation (Pakistan) and The News International not independent? Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: with no significant independent coverage. The sources you cited simply mention the league, without any encyclopedic description of it. Your user page says you are here for 18+ years, so I am surprized you dont know basic notability guidelines. Or are you just trolling me for my sloppy !vote? :-) - Altenmann >talk 22:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  FootballPakistan.com covers the league with complete depth, as it can be seen here [https://footballpakistan.com/category/local-competitions/karachi-football-league/page/3/] if I search by the hashtag there are like 80 articles (10 per page). It is a completely independent platform from the Pakistan Football Federation covering Pakistani football since 2003. Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Additional independent sources, prominent news outlets covering the league with match details such as Dawn [57] or The Express Tribune [58]. Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  That's an extremely rude and unwarranted response User:Altenmann. I'm surprised you've been here 20 years, and still don't know about the 5 pillars and that civility is paramount. I can only respond to what you say - not what I might have thought you meant. I thought you were dismissing these sources as non-independent - perhaps under some misunderstanding that the Pakistan media is government-controlled (which sounds kind of whacky - but we have had others make that argument for other nations!). Still, it's pretty clear from the discussion below, that there is significant independent reporting - so why have you not removed your "vote"? I'm also surprised that people think that any professional league would be not notable. We've had debates before about teams who were semi-professional, and players that are semi-professional - but I can't recall ever discussing an entire semi-professional league! That's normally a discussion for strictly amateur leagues! Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Same points as @Govvy:. I did some changes to the article and the topic has decent coverage on RSSSF, appearing even on the main RSSSF page of Pakistan [59].- Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reference fails WP:SIRS. Speficially, it is not WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the English language references here, indicate that the media cover this league. Here's some Urdu references - one, two. Was there a search for Urdu sources before the nomination? Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:THREE, please list three references that demonstrate WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my previous replies above. Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources I saw in Urdu were primary, generally non-independent coverage of events, not sustained secondary coverage of the league. For example, the Urdupoint article above is entirely reporting what the league commissioner Wahab said, not offering any secondary analysis. FPDC doesn't have any indication that it's RS.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The league has significant media coverage that passes the criteria of WP:GNG, as evidenced[60][61] by notable sources. War Wounded (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited by War Wounded and Nfitz. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now has enough refs after expansion. Codenamewolf (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Football is mainly popular (at least historically) in Lyari among the community of African origin called Siddi. This is an important touranment for them and deleting it would be discrimination. We are not creating articles about individual seasons rather an overview article and for that there is enough coverage in mainstream media of Pakistan: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources now located and added which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupi (Hindu)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Searching for sources returned nothing formal, a few passing references on social media sites. Page also appears to be an abandoned draft. grungaloo (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as dubious. In the internets I found "tupi-lungi-dari (cap, sarong,'beard)", "(tupi, a religious cap worn by Muslims)", "by what mysterious mental process a Hindu (one of their own people), suddenly makes up his mind to grow his beard, and wear a “tupi,” and call himself a Musulman;" And so on. - Altenmann >talk 02:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, almost no content. If necessary this can be created again in the future, but a quick search finds almost nothing in English, and even the term in Sanskrit doesn't have a high number of content hits. Shazback (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine

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

It's enough, for two years we have not created pages for these individual mass waves of attacks against Ukraine and kept them instead at Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). This standard was first broken with 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine, I proposed its merger however it had been the largest of such kind of waves and most people opposed the proposal, fair enough. Then 2 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine was created, unlike the earlier this one was a regular wave and its article remains very short, I've proposed its merger and for now enjoys widespread support. And now this article was created. At Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present)#Timeline you can see how there have been several dozens of these types of attacks, just look at the see also section of this article, we cannot and should not give articles to each of these attacks, much less after two years since they started. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. We cannot have an article for each single day of a war, unless this particular day was somehow special and was discussed in academic sources, rather than in regular news reports. - Altenmann >talk 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted by Altenmann (talk · contribs), WP:NOTNEWS. Unless there is something particularly notable about a specific wave of attacks, it makes much more sense to include it in the Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present) pages where it has appropriate context. This also avoids repeating the same contextual information across multiple pages, making it easier to maintain and prevent vandalism. Shazback (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article, as well as the aforementioned previos ones, was created shortly after the attack had happened to show all the details and to bring civilized world's attention to continuing russian war crimes and atrocities towards Ukraine. Articles may be transferred in the general page but only with all of the vital information kept in there. The main preference is still the detailed information.

ThunderGit (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ThunderGit is not extended-confirmed and cannot make edits or take part in internal project discussions (including AfD) about Russia-Ukraine war due to WP:RUSUKR. They were already alerted about this before. Mellk (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS, impossible to maintain every day war reports in Wikipedia. CSMention269 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings of Frog Island

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching the German music press only, I found reviews for the album II in Rockhard, Powermetal.de and Ox Fanzine as well as III in Metal.de. Furthermore we have Beatsperminute.com – every one I mentioned until now is reliable, as well as a miscellaneous assortment: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] Geschichte (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp The Beatsperminute.com suggested above is a good source for expanding the article. I didnt look into others for I dont care. - Altenmann >talk 02:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beatsperminute.com seems to have in-depth coverage.CSMention269 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Television Style Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

My WP:BEFORE can't find any independent coverage, cites mostly to primary sources and the article doesn't attempt to demonstrate notability, only a WP:DATABASE for the awards going from 2015-2017. I don't believe this meets the advice at WP:NAWARDS nor the policies of the GNG. The article lists current as 2024, but the sources website for that says that this is the first year these have been present. So I get the sense that this might even be the conflation of two different but similar events with the same generic name. I'll note that the page was previously deleted, it would be best to review the comments there as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television Style Awards microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete the recreated page does not ensure notability. - Altenmann >talk 02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and per previous AFD results as the current version and previous version (based on reviews by users who commented on previous AFD) as likely the same. CSMention269 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Szabo

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, lacks independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Canada, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 3 February 2024 (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 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources out there to meet WP:NMUSIC / WP:GNG.

"Szabo happy singing her own tune". The Hamilton Spectator. 2010-04-01. p. 41. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
"Dundas singer Maggie Szabo making her mark in L.A." The Hamilton Spectator. 2016-03-26. p. 41. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
"34 Canadian Songwriters Honoured in US-Based 2014 International Songwriting Competition". The Canadian Music Educator. Vol. 56, no. 4. ProQuest 1710994371. It notes: A soulful Canadian singer who has won over audiences worldwide, with 13 million views on YouTube, Maggie Szabo honed her craft at a young age in her hometown of Dundas. Following her high school graduation, she moved to Nashville to continue the quest to improve her writing and performing. Her original sound, infused with soulful pop melodies, secured Maggie a record deal with Linus Entertainment in Ontario. Her debut pop album Now Hear Me Out was released in November, 2012. Maggie was named Bell Media's Emerging chosen by famed blogger Perez Hilton as his "Can YOU Sing?" contest winner. He hailed Maggie as a superstar on the rise. She also is the winner of the 2014 Toronto Independent Music Award in the Best Pop category.
Crowley, Patrick (2017-09-19). "Maggie Szabo Premieres 'Don't Give Up' Music Video As a Love Letter To Trans Youth". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
Tagat, Anurag (2020-10-16). "Premiere: Canadian Pop Artist Maggie Szabo Sings About Taking Chances in Love for 'Worth The Weight'". Rolling Stone India. Retrieved 2024-02-10.

Jfire (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article needs clean up, but there is also coverage in American Songwriter [74], [75] and The Advocate [76] that could help. Beccaynr (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New sources identified above seem to satisfy GNG Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And Billboard [77] Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: undoubtedly, especially the Billboard source, which is most reliable for musician pages. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tej Gyan Foundation

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

Non-notable organisation. Article orphaned for a decade. Sources are mostly WP:PRIMARY. Article is basically WP:PROMO. PepperBeast (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, India, and Maharashtra. PepperBeast (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete an advert of a yet another Indian sect-like "live a good life" ...er... sect? - Altenmann >talk 02:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another one of those WP:Promo Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 05:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly promotional ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why this was not deleted earlier, god knows. Clearly the tone expresses NPOV issues. And Fail WP:NORG. CSMention269 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Stoica

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

Just a dog trainer who has participated in some TV shows. I don't see much notability. By looking up Adrian Stoica on Google and scrolling down a bit I already get results from different people named this way. I also found no sources from 2022 or before talking about him after looking up his name. I had to use a more specific search in Romanian and got some sources which don't look like the most appropriate [78] [79] [80]. I do not believe this person is notable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Italy, Romania, and United States of America. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep notability asserted: "six-time disc dog world champion", won a talent show and continues to compete. Also, there is enough detailed coverage, e.g., here. - Altenmann >talk 02:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into America's Got Talent (season 18). This strikes me as WP:1E. Unless there is significant coverage separate to the show, the present article, including Stoica's background and linking his participation in America's Got Talent: Fantasy League, could be adequately summarised in a few sentences in America's Got Talent (season 18). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IgnatiusofLondon (talk · contribs), I found Italian and Romanian sources from before his 2023 appearance on America's Got Talent (season 18). They are La Provincia 2014, Sala 2018, and Morosi 2016, and La Stampa 2017. Cunard (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's excellent sourcefinding. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "Con un cane e un frisbee fino al tetto d'Europa. Splendida doppietta per Carugo e Mariano Brillano Adrian Stoica e Paola Bonomo" [With a dog and a Frisbee to the roof of Europe. Splendid double for Carugo and Mariano Brillano, Adrian Stoica, and Paola Bonomo]. La Provincia [it] (in Italian). 2014-05-24. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The page says the full article will be available in the printed edition on newsstands. The article notes: "Adrian Stoica, 36 anni, carughese di origini rumene, e Paola Bonomo marianese 35enne, si sono aggiudicati rispettivamente i titoli di campione europeo e campionessa italiana nella disciplina, nella specialità Sky Awi. Particolare è la storia di Adrian che ha trasformato una passione in un lavoro. «Sono nato in Romania – racconta Stoica – sono arrivato in Italia a 20 anni e ho lavorato per 14 anni in un’azienda locale specializzata nella produzione di mattonelle»."
  From Google Translate: "Adrian Stoica, 36 years old, from Carugha of Romanian origins, and Paola Bonomo from Mariana, 35 years old, won the titles of European champion and Italian champion respectively in the discipline, in the Sky Awi specialty. The story of Adrian is particular, as he transformed a passion into a job. «I was born in Romania – says Stoica – I arrived in Italy at the age of 20 and worked for 14 years in a local company specialized in the production of tiles»."
2. Sala, Alessandro (2018-09-03). "Adrian Stoica: Dog trainer, campione mondiale ed europeo di «disc dog»" [Adrian Stoica: Dog trainer, world and European «disc dog» champion]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Dog Trainer esperto in «divertimento del cane e con il cane», attraverso la sua specializzazione sul Gioco e sugli Sport cinofili. Ex stuntman e da sempre sportivo, grazie al Disc Dog Adrian è diventato in breve tempo un professionista riconosciuto ben oltre l’Europa: negli ultimi 5 anni ha conquistato con la sua Rory due titoli di Campione del Mondo (UFO: Open 2016 e Throw & Catch 2014) e con vari cani ben 22 coppe di Campione Europeo nelle varie federazioni internazionali."
  From Google Translate: "Dog Trainer expert in «fun for the dog and with the dog», through his specialization in games and dog sports. A former stuntman and always a sportsman, thanks to the Disc Dog Adrian has quickly become a professional recognized far beyond Europe: in the last 5 years he has won two World Champion titles with his Rory (UFO: Open 2016 and Throw & Catch 2014) and with various dogs 22 European Champion Cups in the various international federations."
3. Morosi, Silvia (2016-09-15). "Acrobazie a Quattro Zampe" [Four-Legged Stunts]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Un nuovo record per Adrian Stoica e Rory. La coppia a sei zampe, formata da un istruttore e dal suo animale, si è vista confermare anche nel 2016 il titolo di Campioni Europei nel «Disc dog» (qui vi avevamo raccontato la Disc dog mania in Italia). Quest’anno l’impresa è stata da record: i due hanno, infatti, conquistato i sei titoli europei disponibili nelle tre federazioni internazionali più prestigiose e giocate in Europa: AWI, UFO e Skyhoundz."
  From Google Translate: "A new record for Adrian Stoica and Rory. The six-legged couple, made up of an instructor and his animal, saw their title of European Champions in the «Disc dog» confirmed again in 2016 (here we told you about the Disc dog mania in Italy). This year the feat was record-breaking: the two have, in fact, won the six European titles available in the three most prestigious international federations played in Europe: AWI, UFO and Skyhoundz."
4. Cohn, Paulette (2023-09-28). "Why Will Season 18 'AGT' Winner Adrian Stoica Buy Sheep With His $1 Million Prize?". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Adrian has eight dogs that he works with – they can work individually or separately like we saw with Hurricane on AGT, but he hasn’t decided yet if he is going to bring over another of his dogs for the Las Vegas act. But it's not a problem as Hurricane can work with all his other dogs."
5. Johnson, Lottie Elizabeth (2024-01-09). "This dog act recently won 'America's Got Talent.' Now, it's competing for another win". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "For the semifinal appearance, Stoica and Hurricane performed a routine where Stoica attempts to do garden work — a comedic bit that led the judges to proclaim that the act is “Vegas ready,” per the entertainment site Gold Derby. Stoica and Hurricane’s act during the finals, set to Queen’s “Crazy Little Thing Called Love,” showed Hurricane helping Stoica prep for a date with Vergara."
6. Johnson, Lottie Elizabeth (2023-09-27). "And the winner of 'America's Got Talent' is ..." Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Now, with this victory, Stoica has earned the $1 million prize and a headlining slot in Las Vegas. According to his “AGT” bio, Stoica has been performing with Hurricane for roughly eight years. The act previously reached the semifinals of “Italia’s Got Talent” in 2017 and participated in “Romania’s Got Talent” in 2018 and 2022."
7. "Ei sunt românii care au impresionat lumea întreagă la GOT TALENT! Cu ce prestații au uimit juriul" [They are the Romanians who impressed the whole world at GOT TALENT! With what performances they amazed the jury] (in Romanian). Pro TV. 2020-01-21. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "În anul 2017, românii au ajuns și la “Italienii au talent”: Adrian Stoica, un dresor de câini, a primit patru de “Da” din partea juriului, datorită numărului său de pe scenă. Un an mai târziu, Adrian Stoica a participat și la “Românii au talent”."
  From Google Translate: "In 2017, the Romanians also reached "Italians have talent": Adrian Stoica, a dog trainer, received four "Yes" from the jury, thanks to his number on stage. A year later, Adrian Stoica also participated in "Romanians have talent"."
8. "Italia's Got Talent, le esibizioni migliori della quinta puntata. Sia Claudio Bisio sia Frank Matano trovano la loro esibizione del cuore e schiacciano il rispettivo golden buzzer" [Italia's Got Talent, the best performances of the fifth episode. Both Claudio Bisio and Frank Matano find their heartfelt performance and crush their respective golden buzzer]. La Stampa (in Italian). 2017-03-24. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "La coreografia canina di Adrian Stoica. Parte seduto su un divano, deciso a mangiarsi un paninazzo di quelli che si ricordano. Poi, però, a fare compagnia ad Adrian Stoica sul palco (e a «ricordargli» della dieta in corso) arrivano i suoi due meravigliosi cani. Con cui, in pratica, l’uomo mette in scena una divertente coreografia sulla difficoltà a rimanere in forma. Una performance che sorprende e che convince."
  From Google Translate: "Adrian Stoica's canine choreography. He leaves sitting on a sofa, determined to eat a sandwich of the ones he remembers. Then, however, his two wonderful dogs arrive to keep Adrian Stoica company on stage (and to "remind" him of his ongoing diet). With which, in practice, the man stages a fun choreography on the difficulty of staying fit. A performance that surprises and convinces."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Adrian Stoica to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of the other keeps. Plus, he is one of the known winners of America's Got Talent. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is shown that the article passes notability guidelines through previous editors' responses.

2600:1006:B102:8580:41E3:82B1:A61:25EB (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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