Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 04	August 06 >

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adragon De Mello[edit]

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

BLP concerns. The coverage is largely about Agustin De Mello (the article subject's father) and his treatment of his son. All indications indicate Adragon is a low-profile individual. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is impossible to separate the influence of his father in the early part of his life, the sources cited run from 1988 to 2007, indicating sustained interest over nearly 20 years. The subject was high-profile enough in the late 1980s to be discussed in the context of Gifted education. WP:LOWKEY does mention Profile change over time, allowing that someone can be low profile now, but was much higher-profile early in life. Autarch (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sheer number of news stories about De Mello warrants keeping, as he was a public figure for a span in the 1980s and 1990s. His case is a divergent one among entries of child prodigies. Slugmaster (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person, even if just because his father forced a boy to become a child prodigy, who was indeed intelligent but not actually uniquely so. Out of BLP concerns, we can remove the information about working at Home Depot, his family, etc. I already did so. But the trimmed-down article remains. WIKINIGHTS _talk 20:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ward, Delaware[edit]

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

A crossroads that until sprawl reached the area was in the middle of a forest. The oldest topos show a slightly different pattern of roads and a building at the intersection, but that's all. Searching is hopeless considering the commonness of the name. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the incredibly common name (which makes searching quiiiiiiite frustrating), it has been possible for me to expand the article, using references. Long before the earliest topos, older maps showed this community; I've added one to the article, but more could be added. This is a historic community, with census entries (including population figures) going back to the 1890 and 1900 censuses. And this is the closest community to a historical 1700s Mason-Dixon marker, along the southern edge of the state. There's history in Ward, given enough patience. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added references indicate a historical community.Djflem (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there was a small community here, there's no evidence of legal recognition and coverage consists entirely of passing mentions in lists, tables, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 20:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a census count is generally the same as legal recognition for GEOLAND. Meets GNG with new sources regardless. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to the recent improvements by Firsfron of Ronchester. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Yoshida[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw very little coverage in an English search. --- Possibly ☎ 09:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this person is Japanese and works in Japan, any coverage is very likely to be in Japanese only, it is important that a search be conducted in that language before a decision is finalized. CosmicNotes (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Japanese page (which is poorly sourced) describes her as working in the UK, as does a Japanese film festival which lists her as a British entry, so there should be English language material. The interview in French is a blog entry. Two of the three links are to the SAME festival recommended entry list, which in itself doesn't establish notability, as it's not any kind of in depth coverage. Searches for her name in English and Japanese and variously "Last snow before spring", "Alice's Cave", "Fish's wish" (Her three main works listed on the ja page) bring up fewer than ten hits each. I wish her all the best in her career, but she needs more than this to get a wiki page.OsFish (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Horton[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No signs of notability. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator does not meet WP:NMODEL which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Here "claim to fame" appears to be marrying a hockey player and a few trivial mentions in modeling articles. Does not meet WP:NMODEL. CosmicNotes (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nishant S Mehta[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline, basic criteria for people, and criteria for biographies (awards are not sufficiently well-known or notable, nor does the record confer notability). The subject is in the dubious "sweet spot" between having a marginal credible claim to significance and not being purely promotional (though it certainly tries), hence being ineligible for the A7 or G11 speedy deletion criteria. (I have declined to use proposed deletion because it is a newly-created article and thus would expect "opposition to the deletion"). Sources either do not have significant coverage or are regurgitated press releases (non-independent sources). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Ab207 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being related to notable companies, films, events etc doesn't qualify notability guidelines. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and most likely UPE/COI editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Cyber Charter School[edit]

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

Promotional article, with content by banned SPAs and sockpuppets. Per WP:NSCHOOL, this needs to pass WP:ORG, and there's no evidence given, nor visible in a WP:BEFORE. Used to be a redirect to Downingtown, Pennsylvania, perhaps it needs to be again. DePRODed without addition of sources that would pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd happily be shown wrong, but it'd have to be shown ... David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on an online school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a modicum of sourcing, no notability is established about this school, and the tone of the writing is indeed promotional.TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM Written like an advertisement and lacks reliable source. Mommmyy (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlackInAstro[edit]

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

no substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, Refs 1, 2, and 5 are inteviews with the founder where she says what she pleases; #3 is general, no.4 a placement in a list DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, article is biased, very little coverage of this online. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McDermott (Massachusetts politician)[edit]

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

Nothing but local coverage of the local election. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local elected officials are not inherently notable, per WP:NPOL. Non-election sources are lacking, so that makes WP:GNG tough to judge, but it looks like a fail for now. Curbon7 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another manifestation of our overcoverage of Nofolk County, Massachusetts which is generally definable as Dedhammania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County sheriff is not a level of office that automatically guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL, and the article is not demonstrating or sourcing any credible reason to treat this one as a special case of greater notability than most others. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slavko Peleh[edit]

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

Single-sourced article that fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al aman Kollam[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP -- actually an WP:AUTOBIO, per the creator's username -- of a journalist not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, Wikipedia is not a LinkedIn substitute on which people are automatically entitled to have articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test requires externally validated evidence of the significance of your work, and is not passed just by calling yourself important in your own PR. But the references here aren't GNG-building coverage, as one comes from his own employer and the other is a short blurb that reads more like a press release than like real journalism or analysis. This is not the type or depth of coverage it takes to get into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to very agressively enforce its policies against autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Don't want to close this as soft-delete due to likelihood of being contested down the track. Relisting to find more firm consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An autobiographical article moved into mainspace by WP:SPA Al aman kollam after creation by AlamanKlm (and the activity by another WP:SPA Muhammed fairoos in attempting to disrupt thie AfD could also be worthy of attention). The article is effectively a CV making no claim to the subject having attained encyclopaedic notability. The flimsy advertorial references are inadequate, and Indian media searches are not finding the coverage which would be needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Romero[edit]

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

With only a single significant role, Maggie (film), does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! He played more than only one single significant role, just read the article again. You deleted the article even before any discussion...Keckel (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject doesn't have any in-depth coverage anywhere. There are lot's of passing mentions in the news and minor roles. He does not meet WP:NACTOR. Peter303x (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Per WP:NACTOR, notability is based on "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or ""unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The list of credits include multiple major films such as Law & Order, Scream, and Maze Runner. The question then is were these major roles in these films or was he just a background extra. I think this is what determines notability here. Personally, I dont feel like watching these shows to determine this. It appears to lead towards minor roles as they are listed here as "uncredited." CosmicNotes (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is WP:PASSING mentions, so subject does not meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants Are Not Birds[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources to show page can pass notability requirement. Current sources, like Daily Mail, NY Post and Washington Examiner, are not reliable per WP:RSP. Rab V (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being "considered for deletion because (Personal attack removed) cannot tolerate people who do not feel the same as they do. It's not about Wikipedia's "high standards", it's political.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Claxingt0n (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having an ISBN doesn't mean it's notable. The article in its current state reads as an advertisement. I wouldn't say it meets WP:NBOOK, as it's only being covered by a few WP:RS ~~and only for the fact it's not being sold on the Amazon store due to its transphobic content~~ because it's chosen not to sell via Amazon and due to its anti-trans content. Isabelle ^🔔 20:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't banned because of its content: according to the source it's not being sold on Amazon because the publisher/author chose not to. pburka (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction, pburka. I've rewritten my comment to clarify those are not related. Isabelle ^🔔 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The appropriate subject-specific guideline is WP:NBOOK, which requires that the "book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Superficially, there are some sources, but they're mostly about the manufactured controversy around its publication, so we might disqualify them as WP:NOTNEWS. Ideally, we want to see substantial reviews of the contents of the book itself, not just tabloid stories about its release. If it is in fact notable, no matter how offensive its contents, we should have a neutral article about it, including criticism: there are many similar examples in Category:Propaganda books and pamphlets. However the current contents are mostly unsourced fluff about the non-notable publisher. pburka (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having tried to find better sources, and examining the sources in the article, there's nothing here to establish notability. It's just some faux-outrage in a handful of unreliable tabloids, and the book hasn't attracted any attention in the real world. It's unlikely, given its WP:FRINGE nature, but perhaps Library Journal or Publishers' Weekly will decide to review it and we can reconsider. For now, it fails WP:NBOOK, WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. pburka (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think pburka's analysis of the situation is correct. What we have here is a failed attempt at a manufactroversy. We don't write articles based on tabloids, and we're not here to give anyone free ad space. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the analysis above by both Pburka and XOR’easter. It’s not covered by RS; it’s a manufactured controversy without in depth analysis or review. Also, be aware there is a tweet calling for this article to be kept here. —Kbabej (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To date, no substantive reviews and/or critical analysis on which to base an encyclopedic article, and coverage in reliable sources is similarly lacking. DanCherek (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nintendo. Less Unless (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Nintendo[edit]

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

Short, unreferenced list of presidents of Nintendo, with improperly-used table. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nintendo: Simple merge considering how short this list is and the fact that this chart is far better on that page than it's own standalone one. Curbon7 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --MuZemike 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nintendo, can easily be included there. No need for a short stand-alone list such as this. --MuZemike 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nintendo and omit the table. Looks like somebody saw "President" and tried to replicate the political ones, which doesn't work here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nintendo, fails WP:LISTN, not enough Presidents to justify a stand-alone list. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging. The information in this list is already present in the prose of Nintendo (and history of Nintendo) and the presentation and formating of both of those articles is better than this one. There is nothing here to merge that wouldn't worsen the destination article. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nintendo, not extensive enough to have its own separate list. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 22:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Learn Magic Cards[edit]

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

Not a notable book. The review in Dragon magazine is thoroughly negative (prospective readers should stay well clear of the book.); while that doesn't impact notability it does suggest that people would not have promoted to the book. That magazine also appears to cover substantially every published book in the topic area.

The only other reference is Goodreads, and I find nothing else other than comprehensive databases of published books. One review in a trade publication is insufficient to meet GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems like a clear cut case. The one Amazon review says "Drivel , but hysterically funny drivel".Slimy asparagus (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Slimy asparagus. Does not meet WP:GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my searches did not uncover any evidence that the publication meets GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRADO (framework)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. This article is blatantly promotional and has literally zero third-party sources. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The official documentation has too many typos. There are no RS at all. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - I'm seeing lots of use and discussion of PRADO in academic sources, which suggests to me that this framework meets WP:GNG. PRADO is referred to in this computer science education paper (the strongest source I found) as one of "the top six PHP frameworks".^[1] In this conference paper, PRADO is referred to as "widely used" (Google translate) and compared to another framework.^[2] It is discussed as a framework for building interactive tools^[3]^[4] and in two graduate theses (maybe, hard to tell if the second one is more of a technical report).^[5]^[6] Suriname0 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2445196.2445350
^ https://journal.uii.ac.id/Snati/article/viewFile/550/474
^ https://www.neliti.com/publications/219298/pengembangan-aplikasi-e-learning-dengan-menggunakan-php-framework-prado
^ https://www.academia.edu/download/31241108/205.pdf
^ http://riut.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/handle/1/13404
^ http://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/1163/LU_733-sej.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y#page=53

Comment: go ahead and improve the article (or list these sources on the talk page), if you believe these sources are reliable and in-depth. After taking a cursory look at them, I can see only source 1 (ACM) being useful for an article. I think, all other sources either convey trivia information or are not reliable or not in-depth. I'm not sure there is enough to build an article on. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anton.bersh, thanks for your comment but I'm a little confused. My reading of your nomination was for WP:DEL-REASONs (4) and (8). (Do I have that right?) I think neither holds here. First, the article isn't overly promotional and contains encyclopedic content; I removed the worst of the excesses from the history section, although that Features section probably needs to go in its entirety. Second, the subject does seem to have reliable sources: I think [1] and [2] are both reliable, independent, significant coverage, which meets WP:GNG. Finally, I'll mention that I wasn't up to date on the notability standards used for software, but it seems to me that these sources indicates that PRADO meets the first two notability standards at WP:NSOFTWARE (either would be sufficient to establish notability, so I've updated my Keep vote to drop the "keep"). So for which reason do you want the article deleted? I don't know which deletion reason "I'm not sure there's enough to build an article on" refers to. (It's okay if the article is "too short" after removing the unencyclopedic content...) Thanks for the help! Suriname0 (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suriname0, I believe the article in its present state is not suitable for Wikipedia for the reason 4 ("Advertising"). Article's longest section, "Features" is basically a promotonal bullet point listing. It's suitable for a project website but is probably not useful for an encyclopedia reader. Also, this section has no reliable sources at all. Fortunatelly, this point can be trivially solved by removing the whole section (unless there are sources). I try to calibrate my definition of what is a reliable in-depth source based on what community considers reliable and in-depth. I remember helping out with an article which had more academic sources than Prado, but was deleted for notability. Without going into much detail (because it would be WP:OTHER), I initially voted "delete" and then changed my vote based on provided sources and tried to improve the article, but improvements were not sufficient for the article to stay. That article AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genozip. If you think this article can be improved to become at least a stub, go ahead and implement the edits. I'm just skeptical that the provided sources would be sufficient for even a stub. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton.bersh, I made some edits and added multiple sources. But, I'll note that making these changes is not a requirement for an article to make it out of AfD: merely the existence of multiple independent, repliable, in-depth sources is sufficient (assuming one of the other criteria do not apply). Further, quoting WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If you were concerned about the Features section, I would encourage you to be WP:BOLD and simply implement that change yourself, rather than nominating the article for AfD and encouraging others to make those changes. Suriname0 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough academic usage to be notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further evaluation of the substantiveness of the presented sources would be helpful in determining consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For new participants, they key references to evaluate (which are in the article) are these three:^[1]^[2]^[3] Suriname0 (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lancor, Lisa; Katha, Samyukta (2013). "Analyzing PHP frameworks for use in a project-based software engineering course". Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). Sigcse '13. Denver, Colorado, USA: ACM Press: 519–524. doi:10.1145/2445196.2445350. ISBN 978-1-4503-1868-6. S2CID 8392578.
^ Kreussel, Peter (April 2008). "Web Helper: PHP application development with Prado". Linux Magazine. 89: 34–37.
^ Firdaus, Yanuar; Maharani, Warih (21 June 2008). "ANALISIS PERFORMANSI FRAMEWORK PRADO DAN CAKEPHP PADA APLIKASI WEB AJAX". Proceedings Seminar Nasional Aplikasi Teknologi Informasi (SNATI) (in Indonesian). Yogyakarta. ISSN 1907-5022.

Keep. I have no idea how this framework got a cover story in Linux Magazine, but that's a very strong showing for just some web framework. Add to that some sort of coverage from other languages, perhaps in an education context, and it looks notable to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is established by the three sources listed above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glasnost The Game[edit]

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

The case for Deletion[edit]

I think the page Glasnost_The_Game should be deleted because it violates:

WP:PROMOTION WP:N WP:Reliability WP:V

Notability: I cannot find any online non-primary reference to this game that could not have simply been cribbed from Wikipedia. Of course it does not help that the name is a bit non-unique - especially in 1989. In fact there is a 1989 game called Glasnost on BGG (bgg id=6590), but it is clearly a different game with different people involved, a different player count and actually a different concept. That game is unranked on BGG (so fairly obscure) and this is more obscure than that.

Also since this game originates in Greek-speaking Cypress, why is there not a page on the Greek Wikipedia if it is notable?

Reliability of Sources: The current article has two sorts of source: 1. references to the product's home page, which have all been archived onto webarchive.org. 2. some off-line sources in Cypriot newspapers (all but one in Greek). This is in the section entitled "Newspaper articles on its release".

Let us consider case 1. first. The "original" links to these references are all dead. I mean they give 404 HTML errors. The archived links all look wrong as if the web-archiving bot was archiving garbage. This is not actually the case. It turns out they are all archiving the product's home page (http://glasnostthegame.com/) which is very much alive and looks okay for a 1989 web page. This is quite interesting. These links all purport to be Greek newspaper articles. They are named:

Now also game called Glasnost, article published in Fileleftheros -Cyprus' major newspaper (article in Greek)
The Game of "transparency" in Alitheia newspaper (article in Greek)
"Glasnost, a new game for children" in newspaper Xaravgi (article in Greek)

And they all effectively point to the product's home page which is in English.

Now for case 2. - the offline newspaper articles. As far as I can work out these are (or were) perfectly decent print newspapers. (At least one of them, the Cypress Weekly went fully online in 2017). So may be if I could speak and read Greek, I could travel to some library in Greece and check them out. Or I could ask a Greek friend - if I had any friends. I totally get that this does not necessarily invalidate the reliability of the sources from Wikipedia's point of view. (I have looked for these articles to see if they had been published online. I briefly thought I had found something, but when I translated it I found it was the Newspaper's T&Cs.)

However we have some clues as to what those articles may have contained. If you click on http://glasnostthegame.com/history.html, you will find that it purports to be "[Extract from Laouris interview in local news in 1990]". Like much original source history from Julius Caesar's Conquest of Gaul onwards, it reads like promotional material. So did the "local news" contact Laouris or the other way round. I am guessing it was the other way round. And thus I conclude that the inventor, Laouris, contacted all those newspapers and that whatever they wrote is not the reliable independent source material we demand.

No Self-Promotion: It should be clear from above that I contend we are dealing with self-promotion.

Verifiability: I think I have made the case for this transgression above.

The case for Keep[edit]

The case for the prosecution has based his argument on a fair amount of supposition and guess work. It is indeed very possible that if he bothered to learn Greek, hunt down a suitable library and track down those sources his view would be utterly changed. Καλύτερα να σπάσεις.

Also I am not sure how interesting the game is, but its rules are somewhat different from Risk. It may be at the very least an original piece of work. What is there here, that a "Multiple Issues" template could not fix?

Merge?[edit]

I had planned to suggest merging into the Risk (game) article. But I think it is too different from Risk. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete. The footnotes are to the partially broken website of the game. Cited references are in non-Latin script and I have trouble confirming they exist. I added a link to the game's entry on BGG but it has no review/discussion, and a single file with the 'original German rules', which contradicts the unreferneced claim here that the game was created by Yiannis Laouris (a Greek). I did a BEFORE and failed to find any source about this game in English. While WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is a thing, and there may be a notable topic here with sourced limited to non-English scripts and at the moment not easily findable by people who cannot do a search in Greece, the lack of Greek interwiki is the yet another WP:HOAX red-flag here. Unless someone can confirm that that the cited sources (or others) exist and contain WP:SIGCOV, I am leaning towards calling this a hoax, or a badly written mess about a topic of uncler notability. PS. The scan cover of BGG's Glasnot game here statest that the game developer is Gini Graham Scott. Now, maybe we are dealing with two different games here, but the odds are neither is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I already argued above they are two different games. I would not guess it was a hoax. I am perfectly willing to assume the game was actually manufactured and the newspaper articles did actually appear. From the order page (http://www.glasnostthegame.com/order.html) it seems only 100 copies were made. That in itself is further evidence this is not notable to me. Slimy asparagus (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Slimy asparagus, IFF the newspapers appeared and contained SIGCOV then this may be notable, but I am not prepared to AGF this without seeing at least one myself (since I've seen hoaxes with a similar type of references, where the hoax author assumed that most people won't bother trying to find obscure books or newspapers). If the author or someone wants this to stay, first, they need to provide convincing evidence this (and the sources cited) really exists. Then that they contain SIGCOV. And then this will be rescued. I don't see any other shortcut (other than finding totally new sources, which I think we both failed at). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Somehow I missed the inventor has own page. If there were good sources I would vote for merging this into that. However the first reference on that page is images hosted on www.futureworlds.eu, which was founded by Yiannis Laouris. So even the biography page looks like self-promotion to me. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens now? It seems the core problem is the uncertainty over the reliability of the sources. That means the article is not in a good state but equally makes it to difficult to justify deleting or merging.Slimy asparagus (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The Yiannis Laouris page has been deleted. So merging into that is no longer an option. And the biography people apparently took the view the sources are no good, so I reckon we should follow as our sources are much worse.Slimy asparagus (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to the sourcing concerns raised and the fact that it's still within the realms of possibility that this is a hoax, I believe that we need to look at deletion here. Alternatives to deletion have been examined above but there isn't really a suitable one available. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: article was essentially a cut and paste job, without proper attribution and all that. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden in Plain Sight (book)[edit]

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

This is a snapshot of the article Hidden in Plain Sight as it stood on 03/04/21 created in good faith by an inexperienced (and currently banned) user Ireadbooks12 thinking that the title ought to lead to an article on the idiomatic phrase. There may be a case for retaining it as a redirect, and if there is ever an article on the phrase, I guess this is where the book's article should be. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Ireadbooks12 is blocked, not banned. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.D. Workman[edit]

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

Prod disputed by creator; insufficient reliable sources with significant coverage; only claim to fame is being in an anthology that appeared on a best-selling list. There's no evidence that "In the Margins" is a notable award. I don't see any evidence of WP:NAUTHOR being met. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anthology or not, it is indisputable fact that Workman appears on the USA Today Best-Selling Books author list.

WP:NAUTHOR specifically addresses the case of a multi-author work: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." (Emphasis added.) Inclusion of the work on the USA Today Best-Selling Books list makes it a "well-known work" by definition.

There is also a story involving a fight against a copyright pirate behind the creation of the anthology that I believe makes it a "significant" work. I will gather details and add it to the article.

In the original proposal for deletion, OhNoitsJamie said nothing about the notability of the In the Margins award; this is a new challenge. How many levels deep does the notability requirement go? Where is the reference for the notability of an award? The award is quite notable in the community in which it is awarded. That community is described in the Mission Statement of the In the Margins Book Awards: "To seek out and highlight fiction and non-fiction titles of high-interest appeal for male or female readers, ages 9-21, who may fit into one or all of the following categories that identify with: BIPOC youth, youth from a street culture, youth in restrictive custody, youth who are reluctant readers." lomedhi (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the nature of the USA Today award in the body of the article and included quotes from In the Margins Book Awards with regard to their mission and what they look for. lomedhi (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on my research and the sources in the article, there are no WP:AUTHOR criteria currently met. Per WP:AUTHOR#3, it is not enough to create or have a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, but also, In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I have not been able to find multiple independent periodical articles or reviews or other works in which any work is the primary subject. I have also not found multiple independent and reliable sources to support WP:BASIC notability, or sources that could provide substantial support for WP:ANYBIO notability based on the awards (beyond a 2015 press release published by the ALA). Beccaynr (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources in the article, which is a WP:BLP and seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. I don't see sufficient presence to pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources have been added to the article Talk page: All About the Girls: Titles Featuring Young Women in Peril (School Library Journal, 2015, noting "P.D. Workman’s self-published book Ruby landed a Top 10 spot on our In the Margins 2014 list", and a six-sentence review of Tattooed Teardrops (2014) along with brief reviews of other works by other authors; Relevancy Trumps All for Reluctant Readers (School Library Journal, 2014, notes that Kerry Sutherland, youth services librarian at Akron-Summit County Public Library in Northeast Ohio, recommends Ruby: Between the Cracks: Vol. 1 (Workman, 2014), and includes a three-sentence review along with brief reviews of other works by other authors; The 2016 In the Margins Book Awards Are Unveiled (School Library Journal, 2016, announcement followed by official press release; #MHYALit: Teens, Mental Health and the Places it Takes Them, a guest post by Kerry Sutherland (School Library Journal, 2016, detailed plot overviews of several books, followed by brief commentary related to all of the books; Literary Fisticuffs (What's Up Yukon, 2016), a brief review alongside several brief reviews, related to a charity event. The notability guidelines noted in this discussion do not appear to be sufficiently supported by these sources, so my !vote is unchanged. Beccaynr (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article. Also notability concerns as per Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftified by creator while discussion was in process. Redirect since deleted, article is currently at Draft:List of Deutsche Bahn subsidiaries. Star Mississippi 01:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deutsche Bahn subsidiaries[edit]

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

I would have just merged this to Deutsche_Bahn#Company_profile, but creator has already moved the article back from draft space, so imagine this would be controversial and therefore we're here for discussion. There is no evidence that there's a need for this spin out article which has relatively no content or sourcing. It can be spun out when/if there's a need for a list of notable subsidiaries. Its existence on de.wiki is not a reason for a parallel article here since notability standards are different. Star Mississippi 16:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I stick with my recommendation that now refers to h

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Star Mississippi "Its existence on de.wiki is not a reason for a parallel article here since notability standards are different." That's true, but I think it is irrelevant here.

Quoting WP:LISTN, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." The German article lists more than 500 individual companies. I wanted to recreate that article in English for navigation purposes. That list would be way too long to include in the Deutsche Bahn article. In its current state it is possible to merge, but then it would need to be splitted again when the article gets extended. So I'm voting for keep. I would prefer draftifying over merging. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you revert the draftification? That is the perfect solution Star Mississippi 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Because I think that the Wikipedia policy does currently allows it existence, even with the small amount of links it contains at the moment. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It allows its existence if it's needed. There's no evidence that the moment that it is, or sources to justify it as a standaline. It can just as easily be incubated in the article before being spun out when and if it's needed. At the moment, this list serves zero purpose to help out readers. I'd also note that much of the sourcing on de wiki would likely not work here as it does not appear to be independent or in depth Star Mississippi 17:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi Okay, well, let's move it back to drafts then. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. It's a short list that does more damage than good for WP at this time. Nom nailed it. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment creator has moved it back to draft space during this discussion. I am unclear as to process on whether it should continue, so am leaving it open, but have no objection to closure should that be what someone decides. Star Mississippi 18:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My recommendation still holds! It now refers to the redirect to the draft. A draft reviewer should decide on the fate of the draft. gidonb (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Liz has deleted the redirect. I guess with Gidonb's confirmation that their recommendation holds, this isn't an involved close. Star Mississippi 01:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space stations and habitats in fiction[edit]

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

Almost entirely WP:OR and unreferenced with the exception of a few list entries. Despite having a valid subject, none of the info on the page is salvageable, and Space station#In fiction is barely expanded upon so a separate article isn't really necessary. Total listcruft and a collection of trivia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to take a stab at re-writing the current article, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a pretty ambitious entry on space stations which includes a list of further reading on the topic at the bottom. /Julle (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this time, there is nothing showing that the topic needs an article, and the current article is a waste of time and space WP:TNT-case regardless of the validity of the topic. This is something best explored in the parent article using proper prose summary style writing, and it can always be split out if the weight ends up being too great. TTN (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, everything here is WP:OR and WP:IINFO — per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), which voted to rewrite from scratch. From the length of the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entry above, I'd suggest that the topic will need a new article at this location and not a mere section in Space station. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination clearly indicates that the subject is valid and so the policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." To demonstrate the notability of the topic, here's a selection of sources:

Dreams and Nightmares of the High Frontier: The Response of Science Fiction to Gerard K. O'Neill's The High Frontier
Small Worlds and Strange Tomorrows: The Icon of the Space Station in Science Fiction
Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Modern Science Fiction
Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Science Fiction Literature
Visions of Space Habitation: from fiction to reality
Living in space: From science fiction to the International Space Station
Space, Architecture, and Science Fiction: An Architectural Interpretation of Space Colonization
Host of Otherness: The Trope of the Urban Space Habitat and the Concept of Evil in Contemporary Science Fiction Media
The Space Base and Science Fiction
The Other Side of the Sky: An Annotated Bibliography of Space Stations in Science Fiction, 1869-1993
Megastructures, Superweapons and Global Architectures in Science Fiction Computer Games
The Space Station From Concept to Evolving Reality
The idea of rendezvous: From space station to orbital operations in space-travel thought, 1895-1951

See also WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I concur with Andrew Davidson. While this article needs improvement, it isn't really a good candidate for deletion or merger. The other article's section on the subject could also be improved but, were this subject to be done right in that article, it would result in a split eventually. Better to improve the subject here. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to List of space stations and habitats in fiction. The number of sources is simply vast and all of the useful content would be lost if we delete. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree that the number of sources is vast. But if there is no desire to want to improve it to a notable standard, that doesn't really mean anything. See WP:HEY. There has been a decent effort to expand it thus far though still not at the point it could not be merged yet. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), I have rewritten the article such that instead of having a list article that looks like this (pre-AfD version), we now have a prose article (which is admittedly rather brief) that looks like this. @Zxcvbnm, Julle, TTN, and LaundryPizza03: Do you consider this satisfactory? TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now that would still merit a Merge from me, but if you keep expanding it I could probably be convinced to withdraw the nomination per WP:HEY. However, I must note that Earth in science fiction is still a stub, and the effort there was more of a token gesture to prevent it from being deleted than an actual attempt to improve it. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's currently no cohesion between the two topics on the page, so I still don't see any need for this page to exist. It's now been reduced to essentially being two semi-related stubs. Each parent article should be able to handle a healthy three paragraph section going over the topic, and I really don't see potential article to grow enough to justify its existence. Merging to each parent topic would be a fine alternative outcome. And if it turns out there is more potential, there is literally not a single downside to it because they can just be split out again, compared to the alternative of just letting this sit here and never improve. TTN (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TTN: I agree about the habitats part. Stuff on habitats needs to be moved to Space habitat#In fiction rather than be here, as they are two different things with separate articles and no pressing need to combine them together besides making the article look bigger and more notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Zxcvbnm and TTN: I have to say that I am not much of a fan of "in fiction" or "in popular culture" sections. I usually find that if there isn't enough coverage in WP:Reliable sources to warrant a separate prose article, having such a section in the main article is also a bad idea (and conversely: if there is enough to write such a section, it would be better to turn it into a separate article). Anyway, I've expanded the article some more, and it now looks like this (and I intend to expand it more—Dreams and Nightmares of the High Frontier: The Response of Science Fiction to Gerard K. O'Neill's The High Frontier is quite a gold mine).
      I take issue with the assertion that my edits to Earth in science fiction were more of a token gesture to prevent it from being deleted than an actual attempt to improve it because it's still a stub. It would be trivial to make the article longer by adding the examples used by the cited sources, but I don't think that would improve the article since I think a prose article about the topic is the way to go (rather than a list of examples of the topic), and I think the current state of the article is about as good as it's possible to make it with the current sources. I see three possible ways of expanding that article:
      Adding examples (which I think is likely to become detrimental to the article's quality rather quickly unless it's done with the utmost care).
      Finding additional sources (which the AfD discussion showed wasn't altogether easy, although Andrew Davidson seems to have quite a knack for finding sources and might be able to help?).
      Expand what's written about the subtopics, perhaps in the way suggested by OsFish at Talk:Earth in science fiction#Suggestions for structure, which would presumably mean using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
      I'll have to think about that last one, since I'm not sure it would be a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is now a completely different article than when this AfD was started. /Julle (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a WP:HEY case. A notable topic, and now without TVTropes-quality listcruft. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be enough secondary sources to easily fullfill WP:GNG; actually the article already does fullfill that right now thanks to the efforts of TompaDompa. If it stays the length or is further expanded (a concern raised by ZXCVBNM when comparing to Earth in science fiction) is no one specific editor's responsibility and should have no bearing on the deletion decision, seeing that there still is secondary material to expand the article with. Whoever is unhappy with the article being to short can expand it. Actually, I am somewhat concerned that List of fictional space stations has been merged here and now all previous material has been removed. But it's still there in the history, so it's a problem that could be solved with effort. Looking at the former content, I think the allegations of original research were hardly warranted, as by the nature of the topic, primary sources were present for almost everything. Lastly, for the wish to split out content on space habitats raised by TTN: I don't have a strong opinion against it, I think myself that the current title is a bit cluncky, but in the end I would prefer to keep this together: As the article, based on a secondary source, already says, the two concepts are often not clearly distniguished. Take the prominent example of Babylon 5: It clearly fits the definition of a space habitat, but in its fiction is consistently called a space station. Where would you put that? Or include it under both headings, which would be no problem given WP:NOTPAPER, but also an unneccesary WP:CONTENTFORK. Daranios (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article has so little content that it remains a stub, then it's better off merged, not staying as a standalone article, then split off later if it grows to sufficient size. Leaving merge worthy content there, simply to stop it from being deleted, is gaming the system a little.
- As far as Babylon 5 goes, we should always go with what the sources say over the judgement of individual editors. If the sources call it a space station all the time, it should go under space stations, unless we can find a source saying that it's really a space habitat and that the label of space station is wrong. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy calls it a space habitat whereas The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction calls it a space station, for the record. Having read some sources about space stations and space habitats in fiction, I get the impression that they don't necessarily distinguish between the concepts (which may very well be in contrast to sources about these concepts in the real world). TompaDompa (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Zxcvbnm: I think the article was beyond a stub then, is more now, and will be still farther beyond a stub if TompaDompa's plans come to pass (thanks!). So no reason to merge. As said above, the example of Babylon 5 shows us that "There's currently no cohesion between the two topics on the page" is not correct: The cohesion is that the terms have been used interchangeably in fiction. Splitting them would, like in this instance, force us to make editorial judgments when there is no need for this. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I recommend that this nom is withdrawn; the old article was a mess and I'd have voted delete for it, but it's gone, next to nothing remains and the new version looks fine and I'd vote keep. Anyway, this article is totally new and would need a new nom since old votes for old version no longer apply. Thank you to User:TompaDompa for rewriting this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concurrence. I was for conversion to a list. I now concur with Piotrus about the article, the AfD, and the work done by TompaDompa. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to improvements since the article was nominated. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venia Coffee[edit]

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

Promotional article created by SPA. No evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows zero RS coverage, let alone anything of WP:CORPDEPTH. Should really have been speedied when it was created. David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, totally promotional. My searches didn't find anything get it close to WP:CORPDEPTH either. Any article that contains phrases like "birthed from the third wave of coffee movement" is in trouble! Neiltonks (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there appears to be no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. This is wholly non-notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Masisi[edit]

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

may not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. currently there are 4 articles as references. "Latest General Joins..." is not about her. There's a picture of her, but she is not the main subject, which is another general. "African Women Mediators..." contains a brief profile about her. "Southern African War Ship..." made a passing mention of her. "SAND Dedicating July..." has a passing mention of her on page 27. I am unable to find anything of significance of her on Google. – robertsky (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A HR Director, only it doesn't indicate why she is notable. The medals don't add up to anything, they are attendance or more accurately service medals. It is WP:BLP with no effective secondary sources and fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Belmont[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A minor officer who died in World War I. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Poppy discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3:36 (Music to Sleep To)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page has nothing to it that talks about why it needs to be deleted or is in discussion of it, so why does it have a page about it? 22:30, 5 August 2021 (EST)

Redirect to Poppy discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SBKSPP. Redirect as it fails WP:NALBUM. Lacks reliable references. Mommmyy (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gemballa MP4-12C[edit]

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

This might be better as a part of Gemballa, since the subject is only an aftermarket tuned car instead of being a standalone car. Ian1231100 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ian1231100 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ian1231100 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Baby Doll Night[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of substance was found in a WP:BEFORE that could help support notability.

PROD removed with concern "According to IMDB it won Best Screenplay at the Brussels International Film Festival. Consider AfD".

I'm not convinced that that award is notable enough. Thoughts? DonaldD23 talk to me 12:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as according to this source here it was reviewed by Arab film critics and was the most expensive Egyptian film at the time of release. This book reviewed here also reviews it in depth according to the book reviewer, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306's rationale as well as additional post-release coverage and/or critical analysis in the following sources: Media, War & Conflict; Gulf News; Film International; and EFE. I believe that this film meets WP:GNG, with enough significant coverage in independent sources. DanCherek (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College[edit]

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

Promotional article written entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:NSCHOOL being a for-profit organization, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria". The WP:BEFORE gave us some passing mentions but nothing that makes it pass WP:NCORP nor WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion, article restored and discussion relisted as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No indications it passes WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. Ifnord (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants are encouraged to improve the article by adding the sources indicated below to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor de Padua[edit]

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

Notability and verifiability in question. Article was unsourced for more than a decade. I found no reliable online references as per WP:BEFORE.

Deproded by User:Necrothesp. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It took a while, but I finally found a seemingly reliable source that places de Padua as the governor of Batanes; this US Army document. Since governors are notable per WP:NPOL so long as we have a source that supports it, this now passes that criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some other miscellaneous documents about him that don't confer notability themselves, but may be useful to others, so I'll leave them here: a book and a document placing him as a superintendent, and a couple of Masonic newspapers which document his movements a bit. Curbon7 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Curbon. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group). Vanamonde (Talk) 11:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miniminter[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician and YouTuber, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for musicians or YouTubers. The strongest notability claim here is of the "got X number of views on YouTube" variety, which is not part of our notability criteria for either musicians or YouTubers at all, and the footnotes are entirely "music sourced to its own existence on Spotify", which is not notability-supporting sourcing. (There were previously additional footnotes here, which were simply copy-pasted from YNW Melly in the headers of the discography table but had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing the notability of Miniminter since they verified YNW Melly's chart placements and not Miniminter's, and thus have been removed.)
As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist -- the notability test requires certain specific quantifiable achievements (notable awards, charting hits, etc.), and it requires a certain specific type, quality and depth of third party coverage in real media to support an article with, but neither of those things are present here at all. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it doesn’t have enough sources, instead of recreating this article, you should improve Draft:Miniminter. Sahaib (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group) and ECP lock page: The person's individual notability had not been established. The notability of his group, on the other hand, has, and this page was previously established to become a redirect to his group after a miscellany for deletion discussion for a draft article for the person. Since this is not the first time that an attempt to make an article for him has happen and I except more fans of the person or his group to continue trying to make an article without proving his individual notability, this page should revert back to its previous redirect version and locked until further notice to prevent more instances like this. Users should instead focus on improving his draft article until it can be determined to be suitable for the mainspace. –WPA (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group) per User:WikiPediaAid. This article seems to be sourced only to Spotify. JIP | Talk 01:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and merge with Draft:Miniminter. At a quick glance I found these articles about his career (1, 2, and 3), but aside from maybe the Comic Book source, none of them really prove his notability outside of his affiliation with the Sidemen. However, I won't say that these articles are completely worthless; perhaps if another significant source which goes into the history of his channel were to be found, that source along with these three articles would prove that he passes GNG and would allow the draft to get accepted at AfC. Other than that, I don't think it should be deleted outright, but it's not nearly good enough to stay here at mainspace. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert back to redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group) Completely unreferenced and unsourced, except for the "discography" section. The draft needs further improvements. It seems to me that he is perhaps not noteworthy enough to have his own page and is only notable because of the Sidemen, so therefore I believe this article should be deleted and be reverted back to the Sidemen article. Edl-irishboy (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to establish any notability. I would advocate salting the page as well, as well opined by WPA. Ifnord (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and then semi-protect it. Based on JBW's comments below, I am inclined to Delete. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reverted the inappropriate AfD close. It was inappropriately closed by a participating editor. I've left them a note on talk page. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that what makes a user approve Draft:Miniminter and move it to Miniminter (YouTuber) when the subject is completely being discussed in an AfD. I've also reverted the draft approval and moved it back to draftspace, i.e. Draft:Miniminter. Let this AfD procedurally decide what needs to be done. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact I would have speedily deleted it. It has already been discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Miniminter, and nothing has changed to invalidate the reasons why it was deleted then. It has been re-created and deleted several times, as a draft or as an article. Draftifying the article makes no sense, since it has already been made as a draft several times, and discussed and deleted, and there is no reason to think this time someone will come up with anything better than any of the other times. The editors who are so persistent in trying to get this article established have had more than enough opportunity to show that its subject is notable, and they haven't come anywhere near to doing so. It isn't notable. It is time to stop wasting time on this, and delete it once and for all. As for the suggestion of redirecting, that is no problem: if the article is deleted there is no reason why someone shouldn't create a redirect. JBW (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @JBW: I have copied this from another discussion because I can’t be bothered to explain it again: The Miniminter thing is confusing. So I created the page Zerkaa. I have improved the draft page of Miniminter (I did not create the draft). The thing is that someone created the page Miniminter despite there already being a draft. I participated in the deletion of Miniminter, as every single person voted to redirect, I decided to redirect the page. I regret redirecting the page, I thought since it was uncontroversial that it would be okay if I redirected the page even if I was involved in the discussion. Meanwhile today I spent hours improving the draft Miniminter even more. As I was an afc participant I moved the page to Miniminter (YouTuber), I couldn’t move it to Miniminter (because there was a page there). I was acting in good faith. My goal was to get rid of the poorly referenced Miniminter article and replace it with the much better draft article. I am saddened to hear that the draft article has been deleted when multiple editors have contributed to the draft. I would like to apologise for making this mess. I would also ask for the draft Miniminter to be undeleted because it was promising unlike the Miniminter page.

Delete - then restore prior redirect and prevent from recreation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then restore prior redirect and salt all aliases Miniminter, Miniminter (YouTuber), Simon Minter. Any proposals to split out or recreate Miniminter should start from the Sidemen talk page and supported by GNG articles that meet WP:BASIC. Note that the old WP:ENT #2 (popularity) is no longer applicable. We at AFC really don't need to see it drafted out anymore. He's either notable on his own or not notable. Right now the GNG articles provided here say no. And no new articles since March 2021 MFD have been presented to show independent notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel[edit]

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

No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely not justified for such a small promotion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As well as all the redlinks and DABlinks, this article is full of bad bluelinks such as Nick Richards and Homicide. If kept, it will need major cleanup. Narky Blert (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel[edit]

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

No notable alumni for a very small promotion. The article has no sources and most of the wrestlers aren't notable. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely not justified for such a small promotion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Radomysl Castle#Interior. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Ukrainian home icons[edit]

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

Exhibition in Radomysl Castle owned by Olha Bohomolets. No independent sources, only publications by its owner. The article largely repeats the "Interior" section of Radomysl Castle. It seems to be not reasonable to have two separate articles.

Articles in four languages were created by the same user, Юрий Рудницкий, and his edits might imply promotion of this particular place. The same is implied by the tone of the article. The same user uploaded photos on commons, where he signed as "Press service of Olha Bohomolets". Andrei (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few news articles: https://www.unian.ua/society/565049-v-ukrajini-vidkrili-pritulok-dlya-ikon-sirit.html and this one: https://zikua.tv/news/2011/11/07/u_radomyshli_vidkryly_iedynyy_u_sviti_muzey_ukrainskoi_domashnoi_ikony_317955 Basically all coverage in secondary sources has to do with the museum foundation in 2011. Moreover, the museum is a private collection. Therefore, my vote is Delete. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Zik links UNIAN. Unian says "about the opening we were notified by the owner, O. Bogomolets". --Andrei (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are right. I'm removing the "weak" then. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radomysl_Castle#Interior. Like the nom and Dr. K, I am unable to find independent, reliable sourcing. It's a valid search term though and redirects are cheap. Star Mississippi 22:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radomysl_Castle#Interior. Highly unlikely this will be typed in as a search term but a simple redirect seems a good resolution. Nothing to merge. Ifnord (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introhive[edit]

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

Promotional article with all substantive content by SPAs. No evidence of notability under WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; closest to an RS is one article on a funding round, which isn't relevant under WP:CORPDEPTH. A WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and a bit of churnalism from them. There's no evidence this company was ever notable. David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination, and the fact that the article text is marketroid babble. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the existing article is TNT-quality bad, but TechCrunch covered them (in the context of fundraising) recently. I do not see enough good sourcing to justify a keep vote, however. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumgait Private Turkish High School[edit]

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

Also included in the AfD:

Baku Private Turkish High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Baku Dede Gorgud Private Turkish High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Agdash Private Turkish High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Linked promotional articles don't pass GNG and the only sourced part of them is their closure in relation to a political event elsewhere. They don't appear to be individually notable and only merrit a paragraph about their closure elsewhere. Much of the unsourced content is also the same in the articles, making them somewhat dubious as well. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Baku Private Turkish High School was previously nominated via WP:PROD, making it ineligible for soft deletion. The remaining three are still eligible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per nom. Lack of notability as only sourced content is about their closure with relation to a political event. Don't see them being notable as stand alone articles. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all four, per nom and failure to meet notability criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. Ifnord (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nguyen dynasty. I find precious argument here that's evidenced in a way that a non-expert can understand, which isn't helpful. That said, nobody has provided an evidenced argument against a merger, and there's some evidence that this is a POV-fork, and so I'm closing this as a "merge". Please note that this isn't consensus to simply redirect this title and effectively delete the page without first reaching consensus on what is worth merging. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Vietnam[edit]

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

This article sounds at best a revisionist history version of Nguyen dynasty, and at worst, a hoax. During the Nguyen Dynasty, the country was briefly called "Việt Nam" for 35 years (1804-1839), then "Đại Nam" for the next 135 years. The name "Việt Nam" did not reemerge until 1945. Searching for "Đại Việt Nam quốc" did not return anything reliable using this term, just some alternate history forum. DHN (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I left a comment at the talk page for WikiProject Former countries to see if we can get some participants who are knowledgeable on this region and period. Curbon7 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please also see Talk:Kingdom of Vietnam#Hoax. DHN (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't believe that I know enough to !vote, but I checked the source for the phrase "Đại Việt Nam quốc" and can confirm that it exists as used here in the provided book. I am also a little surprised that no article exists for this period of Vietnam, and that instead the only article is on the ruling dynasty; if this article is not a hoax, and instead has WP:NPOV issues that can be fixed, perhaps it would be better to correct those issues and let it stand? BilledMammal (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: The quoted text seems to refer to the name of the country during the period between 1804-1839. The article itself seems to be about Vietnam before French colonization. DHN (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I interpret "You are indefinitely banned from all namespaces except for Article, Talk, User, and User talk pages. The only exceptions are discussions where you are a subject of the discussion. In 6 months you may participate in deletion discussions, and AFC, provided you have been keeping in line with all restrictions." (from 2018) this is a "deletion discussion" so I am allowed to edit this page, so I would say Merge to the Nguyễn Dynasty article, I will copy my reasoning and relevant discussions below. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DHN:, "hoax" is a strong word here but it is POV pushing historiography, this article should be merged with the Nguyễn Dynasty article or renamed to something like "Independent Nguyễn dynasty", this user misinterprets reliable sources by anarchronistically inserting the term "Kingdom of Vietnam" and often they just omit any Nguyễn history following the French conquest. This article only covers the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period of Vietnamese history. I am convinced that the user pushes their POV in some contexts for example "Royal Vietnamese army" just randomly stops at 1802 despite the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia having separate articles for Vietnamese militaries per dynasty. I think that this user makes a lot of Great articles but they seem to deliberately omit information about the Nguyễn following them becoming two French protectorate countries and this article is the epitome of this "cut-off" date. Please also see this comment and this comment.

Copied from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Vietnam&oldid=1037316722

Reasons for merger by Donald Trung

: My impression is that the user wants to make Vietnamese history "more Southeast Asian" and "less Chinese/"East Asian". I understand that this user dislikes using the term "Dynasty" for Vietnamese States, but even Chinese "dynasties" weren't called "Ming Dynasty" but "Great Ming" so they fail at actually differentiating between the dynasty and state using the mainstream historiography so they use the term "Kingdom of Vietnam". --Donald Trung (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::@Donald Trung: Please add your opinion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Vietnam. DHN (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::: @DHN:, I can't, I used emoji's in my signature and was therefore banned from almost all namespaces on the Enwiki. I suggest merging it with the Nguyễn Dynasty article (you may copy my response), this name was used between 1804 and 1839 but is a bad (hoax) name for 1802-1803 and 1840-1945. A lot of the content is reliably sourced but uses POV naming schemes. I actually am happy with Laska666 finally adding a lot of early Nguyễn Dynasty articles, just not their bad historiography naming scheme.

::: More often than not (s)he uses the term "Nguyễn Vietnam" (written as "Nguyen Vietnam") which is a legitimate name like "Ming China" and "Qing China", but the issue is that this user pushes a number of POV's including the 1883/1884 end date and the idea that "Vietnamese dynasties aren't Chinese dynasties" in its historiography, thus making Vietnamese dynasties more like "House of Habsburg" and "House of Windsor" in European articles. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal:, well, the period you're referring to is the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period, the POV being pushed is the extinction of the Nguyễn state in 1884. The "Nguyễn dynasty" article isn't about the ruling family like how Lê dynasty and Trần dynasty aren't exclusively about the ruling family. In Vietnamese historiography (like in Chinese historiography) the name of the ruling family is applied to the period, this works somewhat similar to the European Habsburg Monarchy article but not completely. There actually already was an article about this period but it covers the whole period from 1802 until 1945.

The Vietnamese-language Wikipedia doesn't make this distinction for example (despite having separate articles for the agriculture, military, and every provincial official title of the same period) because of the fact that this wasn't a distinct state and the line becomes blurry where the "Nguyễn Dynasty ends" and the French colonial administration begins and the Nguyễn government remained nominally in power until 1945. I am not opposed to an article about the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period. But it doesn't need to re-write history. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

: Interesting; thank you for letting me know. I do need to read more into South-East Asian history when I find time. BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:: Vietnamese history should be view more as "a hybrid of East Asian and South-East Asian history", it is "a Chinese cultural country" but its history is intertwined with that of other Indochinese countries (like Thailand, Champs, Lan Xang, Cambodia, Tran Ninh, Etc.), a common problem is with some historians trying to neatly organise Vietnam as "exclusively South-East Asian" while other historians paint it as "exclusively Chinese" but both of these are extreme points of view and this article tries to paint it more like the former. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this article was likely created to be about the pre-French period of the Nguyễn Dynasty the lead actually goes further into the State of Vietnam period, most of the content is fine but it uses ahistorical names. In some cases it tries to push what I would like to call "the Vua angle", "Vua" is the Chinese word for "sovereign" that Vietnamese and Korean people at times use in lieu of the official title of a monarch and most "common people" during Vietnamese history called the monarch a "Vua" despite the monarch using either "King" (Vuong) or "Emperor" (Hoang-De), personally I prefer official titles but this user writes a bit as if the informal name was the official name and the official name was some sort of "Chinese-style" diplomatic name.

This user seems aware of all the correct historiography but pushes an alternative interpretation, I cannot comment on their motives but assume that it is to "de-sinicise" Vietnamese history.

The flag isn't exactly ahistorical but the Vietnamese didn't have a concept of a national flag (國旗, Quốc kỳ) until the 1860's. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"On 9 June 1885, Vietnam ceased to exist after 83 years as an independent state." This is actually the main reason why people see this article as "a hoax", the French protectorate treaty never dissolved the Nguyễn state, in fact if one goes over to the articles and even the worst treaty never specified the extinction of the State this article refers to as the "Kingdom of Vietnam", a good comparison would be Kingdom of Cochin which existed until 1949, but became a British protectorate in 1814, before that it existed in the Portuguese colonial empire and the Chinese tributary system and many maps of the Mughal Empire include it as well. The issue is that many modern historians have what I would like to call "the problem of dividing Vietnam into neat periods" where the French period starts either with the capture of Saigon or the Protectorate Treaty but the Nguyễn Empire actually continues to exist until 1945, some historians recognise the overlapping authorities while others prefer the cut off date, this user prefers the French period as a completely separate historical period interpretation. There is no issue with separating a state into periods, for example Trienio Liberal and the Ominous Decade can both be "sub-histories" of the History of Spain (1810–1873). But the notion of a "Kingdom of Vietnam" pretends that there was this separate kingdom created in 1802 that ceased to exist in 1885 that means that one has to ignore a mountain range of history books that cover the continued history of the Nguyễn until 1945. This is all to say that I am not opposed to the existence of this article but it should be appropriately named like "Sovereign Nguyễn dynasty period" or something similar, "Nguyễn Vietnam" is actually used by some historians (can't recall ever having across the "Kingdom of Vietnam") but again some historians continue using it for the French protectorates of Annam and Tonkin while others stop using it at the French protectorate treaty. History is gray and this article attempts to make it Black and White not through argumentation but by omission of information. For example Nội các explicitly states "The Grand Secretariat or the Cabinet (Vietnamese: Nội các) of the Nguyen dynasty were the highest branch of the Kingdom of Vietnam's government (1802–85).", but the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia states "Năm Bảo Đại 3 (1934), cơ quan Nội các được bãi bỏ và thay thế bằng cơ quan Ngự tiền văn phòng cho đến cuối thời vua Bảo Đại, vị vua cuối cùng của triều đại Nguyễn." ("In the year Bảo Đại 3 (1934), the Cabinet (Nội các) was abolished and replaced by the office of Ngự tiền until the end of the reign of Sovereign Bảo Đại (1945), the last Sovereign of the Nguyễn Dynasty.") this should give you a good idea how history can be re-written by using reliable sources but then omitting important information to push a narrative. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments, this article likely exists because of Laska666' mentality that "The Chinese concept of a dynasty or state shall not to be adopted upon other civilisations without careful check.", but the Vietnamese concept of a dynasty is directly analogous and such confusion only exists in English because in Vietnamese we use two different terms, namely "nhà" (茹) which refers to the imperial family and at times their domain and "Triều đại" (朝代) / "Triều" (朝) which is the dynastic state, Nhà Nguyễn and Triều Nguyễn are similar but different concepts and fully overlap, hence are treated interchangeably in Vietnamese and is also why in English these terms all get translated as "dynasty". Furthermore, Chinese dynasties also had official names for their states, the Manchu Qing Dynasty referred to itself quite often using the term "Trung Quốc" (中國，"The Central State" or perhaps better "The Central Realm") and the Tang Dynasty called itself at times, though not commonly, "Chi Na" (支那, a romantic name for China from Sanskrit). The problem here is that in Vietnamese multiple words exist for what in English only has one word, for example if used in the right context ấn triện (印篆), ấn chương (印章), ấn tín (印信), Bảo (寶), Tỷ (璽), Ấn (印), Chương (章), Ấn chương (印章), Kim bảo tỷ (金寶璽), Quan phòng (關防), Đồ ký (圖記), Kiềm ký (鈐記), Tín ký (信記), Ấn Ký (印記), Trưởng ký (長記), and Ký (記) can all be translated into English with a single word "Seal". In Vietnamese all these words have different functions depending on the type of seal, but in English these are all simply "seals", hence the term "Dynasty" being somewhat confusing, this is because a Triều nominally rules over Thiên hạ ("All under heaven"), but a Quốc only rules over its territory, in pre-20th century Vietnamese thinking a close approximation with modern thinking is that a Triều is a sovereign state, but only one sovereign state exists and it rules over the entire universe, but only when talking to Vietnamese subjects when China is involved it becomes "Emperor at home, king abroad". Translating such concepts to "a modern-thinking mind" is difficult onto itself "dynasty" isn't incorrect in the context of the Nguyễn to refer to its government because it refers to "Triều Nguyễn". This is why I strongly oppose deleting this article and simply merge it with the Nguyễn Dynasty article or explicitly make it into a sovereign Nguyễn period article (because it contains a lot of factual and well-sourced information but uses a bad translation), but the current naming convention is literally just combining the fact that historians use the term "Vietnam" and call it sometimes a "Kingdom" or an "Empire", but when writing these books people use modern names to make things easier for the readers, books about the Mongol invasions of Đại Việt also often call it "Vietnam" and sometimes a "Kingdom" or an "Empire". This article just seems to apply it specifically to the pre-French period of the Nguyễn. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of "creating a narrative by omission" is this:

* https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tr%E1%BA%A5n_T%C3%A2y_Th%C3%A0nh&oldid=65108030

** Vietnamese-language Wikipedia's article about Trấn Tây Thành.

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%A2y_Th%C3%A0nh_Province&oldid=1036774235

** Laska666' version of the Trấn Tây Thành article.

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%A2y_Th%C3%A0nh_Province&oldid=1037004733

** The current Trấn Tây Thành article.

Let me start by saying that I am really grateful for Laska666 to have written this article, while I plan on expanding it in the distant future I am glad that someone finally made it as it took years before the Early Nguyễn period isn't that well covered here on the English Wikipedia. That aside, y'all can clearly see that Laska666' version omits all references to Chinese characters and "Chinese-looking symbols" and it didn't translate anything that contains Chinese characters. This user seems to try to project modern Vietnam into the past, they avoid using Traditional Chinese characters wherever possible and this isn't an issue by itself as other users can later add them, it just strikes me as an oddity. Furthermore, compare these two:

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_of_Nguyen_Vietnam&oldid=1036962808

* https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qu%C3%A2n_%C4%91%E1%BB%99i_nh%C3%A0_Nguy%E1%BB%85n&oldid=65283188

Now, specifically look at the text "The Imperial army (Vietnamese: Quân thứ) were the military forces of the unified Vietnamese monarchy from 1802 to June 1885 when it was dismantled and converted into colonial units under French command.", while the Vietnamese-language infobox maintains the 1884 end date, it actually contains information for its 1885 size, but the issue here at hand is the narrative that the Nguyễn state ceased to exist and therefore its military became "colonial units" in 1885, but this is simply not true. The military of the Nguyễn Dynasty was deliberately reduced like had happened with the German military after they lost World War I and the Weimar Republic was allowed to have a small number of soldiers, the Nguyễn Dynasty maintained a number of soldiers, in Tonkin they were allowed to have 3000~6000 troops per province, the Tirailleurs indochinois (Lính tập) were the Colonial troops of France and they weren't a part of the Nguyễn Dynasty apparatus at all, historian Trần Trọng Kim even noted in the 1940's that Nguyễn Dynasty soldiers were essentially unchanged "medieval soldiers" (to use a European analogy here) that were obsessed with Kung-fu and lacked any modern equipment, the Lính tập on the other hand were fully modern soldiers with French training and French equipment. The omission here is that the English-language Wikipedia's "Military of Nguyen Vietnam" article ends abruptly at 1884 while the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia's versions goes until 1945, it organises the "Independent period" and "French domination period" into "Phase 1" and "Phase 2", the Nguyen Military (SIC) article exclusively talks about "Phase 1" and then pretends that "Phase 2" doesn't exist. This is how you can write a narrative while using reliable sources and using mostly factual information, you just omit the parts you dislike. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Vietnam&direction=next&oldid=1025101245 This article was initially redirected to the Nguyễn Dynasty article, as this name was used during the Gia Long period a merger would be better than outright deletion. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above references to other articles are relevant here, this article is the epitome of this user's narrative, the Nội các article ending at 1884 only works with the "Kingdom of Vietnam" ending in 1884, the military of the Nguyễn Dynasty only works with this article ending in 1884, this way you can simply reinterpret sources by omitting anything after this point. These related articles that use "Nguyen Vietnam" (SIC) should also be renamed to "Nguyễn dynasty" because of both WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that most historians both Việtnamese and foreign use the term "Nguyễn Dynasty", but this article contains a lot of good factual information that is currently missing from the Nguyễn Dynasty article, so a merger is better than deleting it because of a hoax name / title. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user is very much aware of the fact that they are omitting information while writing articles, in this version of "Military of Nguyen Vietnam" (SIC) it contains this image with the caption "linh ve and officers in 1919", this means that the user is very much aware of the continued existence of various Nguyễn Dynasty topics during the French domination period, but chooses to deliberately omit it from the actual written content of the articles. This seems to be deliberately done to present a consistent narrative of "1885 Nguyễn extinction" and this article really seems to be the epitome of this issue, this is why to some editors (like the above) it can come off as a hoax, while I don't like calling it a "hoax", it would be like someone saying that after Yahoo! was acquired by Verizon Media in 2019 that it stopped existing, so calling it a "hoax" isn't wrong. That being said, the content only suffers from two (2) primary problems, one is the usage of the seemingly invented term "Kingdom of Vietnam" and the other is the "Lying by omission" (claiming that the Nguyễn stopped existing variously, and inconsistently, in 1884, 1885, or 1886), so the content should not be deleted because most of it is well-sourced, but the false narrative should simply be corrected. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding my contribution and what you called a hoax, I don’t know and I have no opinion, but the Dai Nam state which you said, existed until 1945, was indeed the Annam puppet state possessed by the France Republic, as Dong Khanh was installed as the puppet ruler. So did principal historian Victor Lieberman (author of Strange Parallels Volume 1 Integration of the Mainland Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800–1830), no Dai Nam could be seen in his books, but he wrote two distinct kingdoms, Dai Viet and Vietnam very clearly (p. 29 and p. 32). Did he make a hoax? French Annam, Cochinchina polity, and Nguyen Vietnam were three distinct regimes although they were ruled by the same family. Combining all of them into “Nguyen dynasty” is too complicated and obscure, misleading. Also, for relevance, the Chakri dynasty and the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand) are absolutely two separate things. The Nguyen dynasty (i.e Nguyen Phuc dynasty) was indeed not ended in 1885, but their regime died off (vietnamese empire) in that year, along with the establishment of French Annam (which replaced the vietnamese empire) and enthronement of Nguyen ruler appointed by the France Republic.

What is de-sinicise of Vietnam's history, since the beginning it has already stayed deep in Southeast Asia? Also, there seems to be no Chinese character in all my cited books written by good historians. Laska666 (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My arguments above that this user seems to have a strong anti-Chinese bias seems to be confirmed with this addition of the infobox, not only does it explicitly refer to Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập period, it omits any "Chinese" (Hán) information, the name of the country is mentioned in French, not only is this a name that the French never used (they usually referred to it as "Empire de l'Annam" or something similar) French as a language doesn't make any sense for the Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập period as it was introduced during the French domination period. It is kind of odd how they omit Chinese characters at every given chance as if Latin letters are "more Vietnamese", this would be like a Filipino saying that Latin script is "more Pinoy" than Baybayin (which was used until the early 20th century when the Americans made Latin the standard) or an Indonesian script saying that Latin script is somehow "more Indonesian" than Arabic and Javanese scripts (both continued to be used under the Netherlands until the new Republican Indonesian government replaced them with Latin).

The successor state is listed as "French Indochina" which kind of works for "Vietnamese historiography" (if you squint really hard) but the Nguyễn Empire first lost Nam Kỳ and only two decades later became two (2) French protectorate countries, these two countries are a continuation of the Nguyễn Empire and not its end, this is why the Nguyễn Dynasty is typically divided into two "large" periods (although I would argue that the Gia Long and Minh Mạng periods are also radically different) namely the Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập period and the French domination, unlike the Southern Ming the Nguyễn didn't lose its government or its territory, the difference is that their status as a sovereign state changed to that of two protectorate countries. This is why Laska666 omits information at Noi cac and the Nguyễn military by explicitly claiming that their existence ended at the start of the French domination when they continued existing until the mid-20th century. If we look at sources like the National Museum of Vietnamese History the closest we can find about the Nguyễn Empire's supposed "state extinction" before 1945 would be at "Nhà Nguyễn và những tháng 7 biến động" which has the following passage "Trong một thông tri ngày 24/8/1898, Khâm sứ Trung kỳ đã viết “Từ nay, trên vương quốc An Nam không còn tồn tại hai chính quyền nữa mà chỉ tồn tại một chính quyền thôi” (tức chính quyền Pháp)." ("In a notice dated August 24, 1898, the Ambassador of the Middle States wrote: "From now on, in the kingdom of Annam there are no longer two governments, but only one" (ie the French government)."), this is over a decade into the French domination period and it is clear that until that point the two countries of Annam and Tonkin were still being ruled by the Nguyễn Dynasty and the French together. But as I said before, the Nguyễn Dynasty state existed until 1945, at "Vài nét về giáo dục địa phương nhà Nguyễn" it is explicitly mentioned that the Nguyễn Empire existed for 143 years and the Chinese-style education system for 117 ("Tồn tại trong lịch sử dân tộc suốt năm 143 năm (1802 - 1945), nền giáo dục nhà Nguyễn cũng được duy trì trong suốt một thời gian dài 117 năm (1802 - 1919). Trong 117 năm, nhà Nguyễn đã tổ chức được 47 kỳ thi Hương, lấy đỗ 5.397 Cử nhân; 39 kỳ thi Đại khoa, lấy đỗ được 558 vị Tiến sĩ, Phó bảng."). The significant re-writes by Laska666 only work if you completely ignore both Vietnamese historiography and Vietnamese historians. An example of how their influence completely changed the face of an article just look at "Đại Việt" before them and during their last edit. I don't disagree with the additions, I disagree with them trying to redefine Vietnamese historiography by deliberately misinterpreting the sources they use. --Donald Trung (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "Vietnamese historiography" means and clearly I'm not a Vietnamese. But, the so-called "Nguyen dynasty state" of "Vietnamese historiography" is funny ridiculous and misleading. If so, there must be a clear acknowledgement distinguishes about what a "ruling family" and a "monarchy" is. All thing informational I wrote down are taken from almost verified non-Vietnamese sources written by good historians and together that's creating good global historiography and perspectives. "Vài nét về giáo dục địa phương nhà Nguyễn" it is explicitly mentioned that the ((Nguyễn Empire)) [misleading translation] existed for 143 years and the Chinese-style education system for 117 ("Tồn tại trong lịch sử dân tộc suốt năm 143 năm (1802 - 1945), nền giáo dục nhà Nguyễn cũng được duy trì trong suốt một thời gian dài 117 năm (1802 - 1919). Trong 117 năm, nhà Nguyễn đã tổ chức được 47 kỳ thi Hương, lấy đỗ 5.397 Cử nhân; 39 kỳ thi Đại khoa, lấy đỗ được 558 vị Tiến sĩ, Phó bảng."): No lapping non-English non-RS. Laska666 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Philip's Atlas of World History, Concise Edition:

p. 64 and 65: Dai Viet.^[1]
p. 196: Nguyen Vietnam.^[2]

References

^ O'Brien 2007, p. 64, 65.
^ O'Brien 2007, p. 196.

Where are "Ly dynasty state", "Le dynasty state" or "Nguyen dynasty state"? "Kingdom of Vietnam" may be a unfit title that could be changed to Nguyen Vietnam or Vietnamese empire certainly, but not "Nguyen dynasty state" because it did not exist. Laska666 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brien, Patrick Karl (2007), Philip's Atlas of World History, Philip's, ISBN 978-0-54008-867-6

Something I noticed is that you explicitly add the dates whenever you mention "Nguyen Vietnam", at Nội các "The Grand Secretariat or the Cabinet (Vietnamese: Nội các, 內閣) of the Nguyen dynasty were the highest branch of the Kingdom of Vietnam's government (1802–85).", but if we look at for example Kelley he uses the term "Early Nguyễn Dynasty (1802—47)" for this period and refers to mandarins in French Tonkin as "Nguyễn Dynasty officials", this paper from Cambridge that cites the same authors you do uses the terms "Nguyễn dynasty", "Nguyễn state", and "Nguyễn realm". --Donald Trung (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Laska666 called the Museum of National History in Hanoi, which employs some of the most prestigious historians in Vietnam, as being "non-English" (English linguistic supremacist) and "non-RS" (not a reliable source). I can understand wanting to use English sources for English names but this dismissal based on language seems kind of odd, so Vietnamese writings about Vietnamese history are less valuable unless they do so in a foreign language? Oké... --Donald Trung (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let me put the comments ""Kingdom of Vietnam" may be a unfit title that could be changed to Nguyen Vietnam or Vietnamese empire certainly, but not "Nguyen dynasty state" because it did not exist." and "The Chinese concept of a dynasty or state shall not to be adopted upon other civilisations without careful check." in context here, this user specifically says that they don't like the fact that Vietnamese history is organised into "dynasties" like Chinese dynasties so they wish to invent new terms. Let's take a look at "their" article "Royal Vietnamese army" and note that no such concept existed for a supposed army that existed until 1802, I am not opposed to such an article existing but why does it end at 1802 and not 1945? Because the 1802 end date conforms to "the Laska666 historiography" which sees all of pre-Nguyễn Đại Việt as a coherent single state (their influence completely changed the face of an article just look at "Đại Việt" before them and during their last edit.). The Vietnamese-language Wikipedia's article is "Quân đội nhà Trần" ("Military of the Trần Dynasty"), like all other Vietnamese dynastic militaries are, there is no reliably sourced reason for the "Military of Nguyen Vietnam" to not be a part of the "Royal Vietnamese army" and the 1802 cut-off date makes little sense if the state is "Đại Việt" as the Gia Long Emperor used that name until 1804. Also note how their edits to the Trần military re-worded it to remove references to the Chinese concept of "dynasty". Note that the Vietnam Military History Museum has a battle flag with the Traditional Chinese characters "Trần" (陳) on it which, if it is a preserved historical flag, means that contemporary Vietnamese also used the Chinese concept of dynasty.

But here is an important question, why should the English-language Wikipedia invent a historiography not used by any mainstream historians based exclusively on Anglophone historians' view on Vietnamese history, in another discussion I had today fellow volunteer contributor Morrisonjohn022 pointed out how problematic it can be to depend on foreign historians with the "note that the authors you cited are Western scholars that tend to subscribe to a Western point of view on Chinese history that may not necessarily be entirely accurate", Vietnamese historians always use dynasties to refer to states, sure some arguments can be made that the Nguyễn Dynasty ended during the mid-1880's:

Kathryn Dyt- Past and Present Fellow, 2019-21 - Living in an Egg Shell: Divination and an Experiential Sense of Place in Nguyen Vietnam, 1802-1886. - www.history.ac.uk.

Old revision from Wikipedia showing its end date as 1883. - en.m.wikipedia.org.

Search 195,247,170 papers. - Sign In. - You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. - Corpus ID: 155276049. - Confucian Influences on Vietnamese Culture. - Lý Tùng Hiếu. - Published 2016. History - Vietnam social sciences. - For 1,900 years of dissemination in Vietnam, particularly in two periods such as Later Le Dynasty (1428 - 1527) and Nguyễn Dynasty Early Period (1802 - 1883), Confucianism caused vigorous impacts on Vietnamese culture. - www.semanticscholar.org.

The Vietnam Law & Legal Forum consistently uses the term "Nguyen dynasty (1802-1884)" - This website probably most egregiously promotes this earlier "end date", especially since its laws stayed in effect under French domination. - vietnamlawmagazine.vn.

Re-assessing the Nguyễn Dynasty. - Uses the phrase "Nothing good to say about the feudalism of the Nguyen period (1802-1884)". - www.jstor.org.

The maritime defense activities under the Nguyen dynasty (1802-1884). - Mai Thi Tran - SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL. - An official journal of Viet Nam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam since 1998. - stdj.scienceandtechnology.com.vn.

Vương triều Nguyễn giai đoạn (1802-1884) trong so sánh với các nước Đông Nam Á (Nguyễn Dynasty (1802-1884) in comparison with Southeast Asian countries). - m.tailieu.vn.

TTLV: Nguồn sử liệu về Vũ khố triều Nguyễn (giai đoạn 1802-1884) - Thứ tư - 28/10/2015 04:55. - ussh.vnu.edu.vn. - My alma mater.

Learning about Nguyen dynasty military in the 1858-1884 period. - March 2016T?p chí phát tri?n Khoa h?c và Công ngh? 19(1):37-44 - DOI:10.32508/stdj.v19i1.554 - Authors: Minh Trong Nguyen. - www.researchgate.net.

The Myth of the Restoration: Dang-Trong Influences in the Spiritual Life of the Early Nguyen Dynasty (1802–47) by Nola Cooke. - link.springer.com.

There are also counter examples (where the end date was later) with the dates being 1802-1953, but this is even rarer. But the main view remains that the end date was 1945, as for any of the above links there exists dozens of works use the "1802-1945" dates for the Nguyễn Dynasty and the most common name in English for the period described in English is not the "Kingdom of Vietnam" or "Empire of Vietnam" it's the "Early Nguyễn Dynasty". This is also why the article immediately appeared like a hoax to a Vietnamese-language Wikipedia administrator that came across it. So the question with this article remains, should the English-language Wikipedia invent new terms because one editor doesn't like the current mainstream way that Vietnamese history is written both in English and in Vietnamese? I sure hope nobody thinks that the answer should be "Yes". --Donald Trung (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying comments by Lệ Xuân.

"@Donald Trung Sorry for not being able to answer you yesterday. Since I don't have the time to check out the two articles you linked above yet, I will share my opinion about Laska666 based on my personal experiences. The first time I encounter this user was when I was asked to copy-edit Chiến tranh Việt–Chiêm (1367–1396) that was translated from the English version they have written. At first I was surprised to see someone write a new excellent Vietnam-related article, a topic that has apparently lost the attention it deserves. I think anyone who sees this article for the first time but doesn't actually read it will think the same way as I do. However, if you read carefully, you will notice some notable problems. In some passages, for example, he interpreted the information differently than the original in the source. I'm not sure if it was intentional or unintentional, but for someone who could write a long article like this in English, I doubt they got the source wrong. Another thing to note is that some terms probably seem to be their self-invention. For example, the term Continuation War (imitating the second phase of the Finno-Soviet War) and probably the term Nguyen Vietnam or the Kingdom of Vietnam to describe the independent era of the Nguyen Dynasty you mentioned above. Unless these terms appear in reliable sources, they can be regarded as original research and should be avoided on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main job is to convey reliable information, not a place where people express their biased opinion. (I'm not sure I'm right, but I remember someone telling me he is ethnic Cham and made quite amount of posts about Cham history in some history groups on Facebook. This could explain the "pro-Cham" tendency in his idiolect.) LX | Talk 15:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

"I just notice that they used a bunch of sources from the early 19th century as references for the terms "Kingdom of Vietnam", which strikes me as ridiculous. It is quite strange to see someone like him, who is trying to imitate "western-style" historiography, use primary sources to back up his statements."

"@Donald Trung Before adding the infobox, he even used an old German map from 1844. Beside the odd French name (odd because French is a "barbarian language" that has not gained ground in the "centre of Huaxia civiziation" (with which the Nguyen like to describe themselves)), which is as ridiculous as someone adds the Arabic name to the article on Rome, I am also skeptical of the name "Nước Việt Nam", which seems to be another self-invention of this guy. The name sounds too vulgar to me (at least for this period), simply because Classical Chinese was still the official written language of the court up until 1945. I doubt that there are any documents from this time contain this name. LX | Talk 17:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

An article written by the person concerned was translated into the Vietnamese language and then extensively edited to make it fit the NPOV, but it failed to get" good article" status because of their authorship and the POV issues that brings, please see: https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E1%BB%A8ng_c%E1%BB%AD_vi%C3%AAn_b%C3%A0i_vi%E1%BA%BFt_t%E1%BB%91t/Chi%E1%BA%BFn_tranh_Vi%E1%BB%87t%E2%80%93Chi%C3%AAm_(1367%E2%80%931396)

This means that Laska666 is a person fully capable of writing high quality articles in English, but chooses to misinterpret sources to push their POV. I copied the above because the user is on vacation in Estonia and she likely won't be back before this AfD closes. This article just exposed a systematic problem with this user's historiography. As you're active on Viwiki @DHN:, did you see more translated articles that were originally authored by Laska666 that needed extensive re-writing? Assuming that you read history articles. As issues from those can be listed here for when this article gets merged into the Nguyễn Dynasty one that it doesn't "import its issues". --Donald Trung (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Re-titling looks like a better idea to me than a merge. This is definitely a distinct period in Vietnamese history. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Srnec:, the problem with this article isn't that it's about the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period, it is the fact that this article revises that period and in the way it is currently written is a hoax. For example the infobox states that the state "ended" in 1885, which is a reference to the 1885 Treaty of Tientsin which ended the Sino-French War which is the author's own invented historiography as in the examples I like above the end dates for this period are consistently 1883 or 1884 based on the establishment of the French protectorates, in one instance someone uses 1886 but never 1885 which was invented o fit their French conquest of Vietnam historical revisionist article which even states "Kingdom of Vietnam (1858–83)", notice also how this article (and articles linked to by this user) uses the 20th (twentieth) century flag of the Nguyễn Dynasty to claim as its flag, which is also an odd hoax to include. The title in the infobox is "Đại Việt Nam Đế Quốc (Vietnamese). - Empire du Viêt Nam (French)" this name was never used in Vietnamese, first of all it is not even Vietnamese, it's Classical Chinese, in Vietnamese we would write "Đế Quốc Đại Việt Nam" and as the nominator states the name "Việt Nam" was only used for thirty odd years. French is listed as a language (in the pre-colonial period) but Classical Chinese is not (the actual official language). The term "Nước Việt Nam (Hán-Nôm: 渃越南)" wouldn't have been used at the time, the lead actually goes into the mid-20th century (contradicting the rest of the article). The way this article is written is clearly to replace the Nguyễn Dynasty article to fit the author's revisionist view of history, it is not actually the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period it just uses it as a vehicle to push a newly invented narrative. For example almost everywhere this article is linked it includes the start and end date of the "Kingdom of Vietnam" like at "Template:Nguyen Vietnam" and "Nội các ("the highest branch of the Kingdom of Vietnam's government (1802–85)", an institution that existed well into the 1930's). If merged it would be easier to fix the issues with otherwise amazing content, but if it is allowed to stand on its owns it unnecessarily promotes hoaxes. I think that "nuke and start again" goes way to far, but with merging it allows us to fix the issues inherent throughout the article and if a real "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period article gets written it won't include all the hoaxes and re-interpretations present in this article. There is a reason why the nominator saw this article as a hoax, it is not because it covers a specific period in Vietnamese history but because it almost completely revises it. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article is a PoV fork of Nguyễn Dynasty. The content on the historical Vietnamese states on Wikipedia is chronologically organized as follows: (1) Đại Việt (968–1407; 1428–1804) -> (2) Nguyễn Dynasty (1802–1883/1884) -> (3) French Cochinchina (1862...), Annam (French protectorate) (1883...), Tonkin (French protectorate) (1883...). The problem has arisen due to the second article's subject on a first glance appearing not as a historical state, but as a dynasty, which is slightly unconventional. The editor who created the here nominated article, did so construing the "dynasty article" as just being about the members of dynasty, when it is not, the subject of (2) is really and primarily the historic state, and the article named by the dynasty. Like Srnec said: This is definitely a distinct period in Vietnamese history -- yes, and this covered in (2). That is the longstanding article on said period, specifically.
This means that keeping is eliminated as an option. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it can't be 'keep' because this is at best a duplicate article, which was correctly identified by Mccapra when he redirected the article as content is duplicated in target article /Nguyễn Dynasty/. At worst this article is a WP:POVFORK. Based on the arguments and the evidence provided by the nominator and Donald Trung, I conclude that the article is indeed a PoV fork, and as any PoV fork, it can be safely deleted (or redirected). However since the article contains some good parts, which would fit in the Nguyễn Dynasty article, it should be merged. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetabakea[edit]

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

Tetabakea was a geoname place used by old Census (Causeway/Tetabakea area) in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, then in Kiribati. It is not a village and does not appear on modern maps. 2020 Census lists all the villages of Nonouti, and there is no Tetabakea. As you can check here (2012) and here (2020). --Arorae (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copy here a quite surrealistic discussion about this article, between an Admin and I:

Dear User,

May I suppose that you have never been on Nonouti, a wonderful atoll of Kiribati? I was quite surprised when I saw an unreferenced article about Tetabakea, a place I have never heard before (I am a scholar of Oceanian studies), but of course, you can never know everything, even on the country you have studied most. Because it was just sandbox stuff with no reference (until 2008), I move it to Draft. Someone wrote already in 2015: "Appears to be fictitious entry MozzazzoM (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)". So I was quite surprised that you REVERT my move (something always close to some disrespect, without further explanations) but with an article still so limited (no mention of the island of Nonouti, but an anonymous "atoll"…), so I have controlled your refs. One by one. Tetabakea seems not to be a village or a settlement of Nonouti, but just a place name (Causeway/Tetabakea) which was used as a limit area for Census. There is nothing like Tetabakea village in all Nonouti atoll, as you can see in the 2020 Census, where all the villages of Nonouti are listed. You will tell me that this name exists (or existed) in former census. But I will ask you to prove that this place is a village nowadays, it is not, except in your superficial reading of the sources. Have a look on the map. Sorry to tell you that, but it is not finding an old Gilbert and Ellice Islands census (I have all downloaded them in my own library), that you will demonstrate that I may be wrong, but who knows, you might be more smart than me.--Arorae (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a reasonable point, but you should take it to AfD rather than unilaterally draftifying it. I've provided enough references to indicate that it clearly isn't fictional, but since it may not meet WP:GEOLAND, best to let the community discuss. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To complete my analysis: here is the official report from 2010 census on Nonouti:

Table 11-1: Nonouti population by village 2010: Nonouti Village Population
Abamakoro 104 Benuaroa 84 Teuabu 269 Temanoku 286 Rotuma 405 Autukia 112 Matang 537 Taboiaki 692 Temotu 194
Nonouti total population 2683
Source: 2010 Census

"Taboiaki is the largest village of Nonouti with a population of 662 people (26%). Matang village is the administrative centre of the island and as such has better infrastructure and facilities, it is also the second largest village on Nonouti with 537 people (20% of the total). Benuaroa (a combined name for the islets of Mataboou and Tebuange) village held the least number of the island’s population, with only 84 people or 3% of the total population."

Yours and you may need more explanations, it will be my pleasure.--Arorae (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let the community discuss about fictional places that not meet WP:GEOLAND? I have really no time to make an AfD for dozens of geo names places in Nonouti, all created/invented in 2008, and that are fictional as settlements or villages. Sorry, but an Admin who prefers fiction to reality, will not receive my support.--Arorae (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin in question, I really don't understand Arorae's attitude and actions here. He draftified a long-established article. I reverted and added sources. Arorae made salient points on my talk page as to whether the settlement was still extant. I said he was probably right and directed him to AfD and for that I was excoriated as preferring fiction to reality? Then he moves a whole bunch more articles to draftspace, creates this AfD, and insultingly refers to our conversation as "surrealistic". It's just not collegial. I don't even necessarily disagree with the deletion argument, but I object to the out-of-process use of draftification as a backdoor deletion, and I suspect I won't be the only one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have never said clearly : "[I] was probably right", and I do not excoriated a people (I wrote: "it will be my pleasure" to help), but still do not understand her attitude, trying to find some odd reference that this place really existed. I am not Admin so I do not know that drafting old articles was not the best way, because of collegiality, but it is, imho, a nonsense to keep fiction in the main space, at my humble opinion. Her wording: "I don't even necessarily disagree with the deletion" is the ultimate proof that there is something strange or surreal in her attitude. I am still waiting that she explains me how this settlement could exist… And of course, she will not.--Arorae (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly found sources that indicated that the place-name existed for some kind of settlement in the country at some point. Despite that, you continue to insist that the name is fictional, which implies that it never existed. That is clearly erroneous. I directed you to take the policy-appropriate step of taking it to AfD for a discussion, and you ranted at me about being "an Admin who prefers fiction to reality". I do not. I prefer policy-based actions to inappropriate unilateral draftifications. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"clearly erroneous"? No "settlement" had never this name in Nonouti, if settlement means in English a small village with some people in it. An area called "Causeway/Tetabakea" (not only Tetabakea) was perhaps defined for census purpose by British Colonial Service, and might have existed, but not a village or a settlement with that specific name. I confirm that this article is pure fiction (as a village) and has nothing to do with the list of Kiribati villages — where you add it.--Arorae (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we clearly have different definitions of fictional. Have a good one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a fictitious entry based on the lack of sources and the above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Non-notable location. GBooks had nothing notable, mentions a chief by that name, mentions a child and a measurement with that name. JStor and newspapers.com had nothing. I found no notable coverage of this locale, there was no WP:RS source that described the notability of the location. The article does cite some census reports with that name, which could be used as a justification to keep the article. If an editor feels strongly that the article should be kept, I would happily withdraw this weak delete. Cxbrx (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G12. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alauddin Samarrai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (specifically WP:ACADEMIC) and WP:RS. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Academic. Also, the image copied from a funeral home website, so likely a copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @David notMD: It's not just the image that's been copied from that website, almost all the text is a verbatim copy of his obituarty. see Earwig. I've tagged for G12 deletion since everything here seems to be a copyvio 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to "keep". Despite two relists we haven't seen much engagement here, and the only !vote to engage with the content makes a fairly reasonable argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Comité 1973[edit]

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

Sockpuppets by Meneses Monroy (see its deletion discussion), with only few edits, have created machine translations of this exact same article on multiple wikis. frwiki editors have already unmasked the IPs behind. There are no third-party, non-user-generated sources anywhere to be found. And the spammers are now trying to smear anyone who dares unmask their stratagems—the latest they did was attempting to impersonating me. Born2bgratis (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, a lot of primary sources in the references. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

This user Born2bgratis has made a lot of vandalism. An admin of the german wikipedia has declared the actions of this user as vandalism, look here. This guy Utilizaire:Born2bgratis and this: User:Fmarioivan, most likely a sock puppet account, (or two people coordinated to destroy the same neutral items), they have the same announcement. Born2bgratis says in his user page: "English: Welcome! I’m a user from Mexico. I’m attracted to free software communities because of their spirit of collaboration, and that very same thing lured me to Wikimedia, so here I am Face-smile.svg. I collaborate mainly in the Romance-language editions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary, but I also edit here and there sometimes." And Fmarioivan also says: "English: Welcome! I’m a user from Mexico. I’m attracted to free software communities because of their spirit of collaboration, and that very same thing lured me to Wikimedia, so here I am. I collaborate mainly in the Romance-language editions of Wikipedia and Wikidata, but I also edit here and there sometimes. (Feel free to translate this text to your language. Thanks.)"

You can compare their user pages Utilizaire:Born2bgratis and User:Fmarioivan. Compare their user pages and actions and you are going to see vandalism.

The admin Emu at wikidata has already told this guy Fmarioivan / Born2bgratis, that "Deleting valid sitelinks without a very good reason can’t be tolerated and may result in blocks. Look at here.

You can see the actions of these users at 20 july, attacking the item El Comité erasing neutral links, the links to wikipedia, as if the articles were already deleted, but they weren´t, look here. He uses speedy deletion, even when it is not the case for that, and has already deleted a lot of neutral items, photograps, wikipedia articles... Thanks for your attention. --AYSO60 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discussion should be focused on the subject, not the users. I see good sources. For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid. I can see secondary sources, like this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=EwsiEAAAQBAJ and this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=MkfmDwAAQBAJ The subject has more than 20 publications. Therefore, I don't see any good reasons to delete it. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dr.KBAHT: LMAO, you didn't even bother to read a tiny bit of what you linked, did you? Those links are not real books. These are just the kind of "books" you could create with PediaPress, by scraping Wikipedia content directly. So no, those are not "good sources," because Wikipedia doesn't use Wikipedia itself as a valid source. Born2bgratis (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Born2bgratis: Good catch about the books. The text doesn't match the WP articles exactly. It was probably rephrased using AI. However, I will not change my vote because there is no prove that the subject has anything to do with the fakes. Maybe somebody is pretending to damage the subjects reputation. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dr.KBAHT: 1) nobody is trying to suggest that the entity spamming Wikipedia and the one creating fake books are the same, and 2) if anyone is trying to smear somebody's reputation here is said entity spamming Wikipedia, which has impersonated me, as seen above. Born2bgratis (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion consensus as not viable and indiscriminate. There was also strong consensus that an article could be created, as well as smaller articles/lists on narrower topics.

Any admin/REFUND may draftify this for those purposes without contacting me first. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction based on World War II[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate list that is currently unreferenced outside of a single footnote to Amazon's page about one book. The list's scope is extremely large, reminding me of the recently deleted lists of songs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about rain (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about the environment (4th nomination)), but this one includes not just songs but 'all fiction'. And the inclusion criteria are quite arbitrary (what exactly does it mean by "based"? Is it "about"? Is it "inspired"? And it already sprouts a section like "Authors who specialize in World War II"; plus a comic section which promises a start of a wonderful list of "Marvel superheroes who fight Nazi Germany". Headache incoming). Undeniably World War II in fiction or popular culture are notable topics but this list (even though it's not called such) is beyond saving. I think this needs to be WP:TNTed without prejudice for a proper, non-list article to be written about this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate list with a hopelessly vague and broad scope. Some subcategories of the corresponding Category:World War II fiction contain hundreds of articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Far too broad an area. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but we do desperately need a World War II in fiction article. Gildir (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not complete and subjective, too broad an area. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Navigational lists are more useful than categories, allowing more information to be shown. List of World War II films List of World War II films (1950–1989) List of Allied propaganda films of World War II List of World War II TV series List of World War II short films List of World War II science fiction, fantasy, and horror films Dream Focus 15:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus The issue is of scope. The list you cite cover much smaller topics which can conceivably be shown in a list. A complete list of all WWII fiction would crash most browsers, or we would have to split in weird ways that don't make sense (outside the system we have, of which articles you cite). The main article should be TNTed and restarted as a prose overview of the topic, not a messy list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see the point in such a broad thing. Intothat darkness 20:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, where do you even start with this? WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World War II in popular culture; I agree the scope is problematic here. All of these lists are better handled elsewhere with more context. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, World War II in popular culture seems like a half fork of this (the lists), and half the article we need to be written (but sadly, the prose parts are mostly unreferenced). It may warrant its own WP:TNT. As I said, there is obviously a notable topic here - but what we have are bloated lists and OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World War II in popular culture which is part of a set: World War I in popular culture, World War III in popular culture. The references to TNT are in poor taste here as TNT is a toxic explosive which was used to kill many people during WW2. In any case, WP:TNT is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". The community's actual policies are to prefer alternatives to deletion and preserve content. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 13:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spec Sharp[edit]

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

Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability. The one source provided was written by what appear to be the creators of this product at Microsoft Research, making it clearly primary. Searches of books, scholar and the web turned up nothing helpful. Msnicki (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Content from Sing Sharp was merged into this article several years ago, so I would like to see a stronger consensus before deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview, Sussex County, Delaware[edit]

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

An early suburban development on the outskirts of Millsboro, now inaptly named since the newer and much ritzier development across the road put up a big fence which blocks the view. At any rate, not notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is one of the best nomination justifications I have seen for a while. Brilliant. Beyond that - and I should acknowledge Mangoe's outstanding work on these of late - this is another excellent example of solid WP:BEFORE practices. I couldn't find anything that came close to being significant coverage in reliable sources. Always willing to consider sources if someone has them, but I don't think that will happen in this instance. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources found subsequent to nomination demonstrate GEOLAND met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redden, Delaware[edit]

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

This is the first case I've found in Delaware of what looks to be a pure rail spot, as the only sure reference to it I can find calls it "Redden station" and the maps and aerials don't plainly disagree with that. There are two significant complications, however. First, Redden is a hugely prominent name in the region from way back, so it's hard to get past them in the searching. Second, however, is that the Redden Lodge sits in the Redden State Forest, immediately to the east. Both of these attract a ton of coverage, between the NRHP (the lodge) and the CCC (the state lands), but both are at some remove from the former station. If anyone can come up with some evidence that there was a town here, we can update the article, but otherwise I don;'t think it's notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was definitely more than just a rail station. Census data is available for 1890, 1900, and 1920, and they show 50-60 residents here. I've added this info, and will add more later this week (I'm currently traveling, and have no access to my paper books). This was a notable community in its time, and maps of the era show a real place with a real population. NewspaperArchive also has enough to flesh out this article: 422 articles; some will be false positives, but there's plenty of encyclopedic info here. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs.Djflem (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GEOLAND with census figures. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Emerging technologies. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding edge technology[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is marketing jargon and the article is basically just a definition, paired with what appears to be a synthesis in the "Cost and benefits" section. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to redirect to a section within emerging technologies, high tech or something like that? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is not a dictionary entry and it's not marketing jargon either, as the phrase has negative connotations. As there's at least one book on the subject, I'm not seeing any WP:BEFORE here. And here's a Wiki take on on the topic too, FWIW. The worst case here seems to be merger into some other page about technology risk. See hype cycle, for example... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book you say 'is on the subject' clearly isn't, judging by extracts that can be read online. It is about the impacts of technology on society, another subject entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I left a less than complimentary comment on the talk page of this dictionary definition of buzzword jargonising / synthesis just under 10 years ago, suggesting it be deleted.[1] My opinion still stands. 'Bleeding edge technology' isn't a thing. It is (or was?) a phrase bandied about by people trying to impress each other. Wikipedia isn't a repository for 'words used in a specific order for marketing purposes', or for random examples of things contributors think such words-in-order might be applied to. Not even when accompanied by confusing metaphors involving warfare, horse racing, and albino pachyderms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wikt:bleeding edge, this is just a definition. I don't see a good Wikipedia redirect target. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into emerging technologies, as Joy suggests. Artem.G (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DanCherek (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GJESM[edit]

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

This article previously existed at Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management and was deleted via PROD in 2015. The concern at the time was that there were no independent sources and it failed WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG. The same concerns remain — the current article's sources leave much to be desired and I was unable to locate further sources to demonstrate notability. DanCherek (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what was true in 2015 is no longer true anymore, the journal is indexed in Scopus for instance, and that wasn't true back then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Headbomb, my mistake for overlooking the indexing. I think that makes it relatively uncontroversial so I will withdraw the nomination. DanCherek (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Randykitty: who originally PRODed this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Mechanic[edit]

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

Six of the 7 references here are about a single relatively minor case. The 7th is from the organization itself. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find HighKing's analysis of the sourcing sufficiently persuasive in what was a poorly-attended discussion. Daniel (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionPro Inc.[edit]

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

fails WP:NNCORP.The references are all either PR, such as the article in People, or notes entirely about funding or staffing . Ref 1, in the NY Times, is a mere mention in a general article--not even a compelte sentence DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. QuestionPro qualify for WP:GNG. There are already thousands of companies similar to QuestionPro In. on Wikipedia and i don't agree with deletion nomination.

Here all feature in-depth coverage.

Reuters: https://cn.reuters.com/article/idUS122800060220120821
Austin American-Statesman: https://www.statesman.com/business/20200121/survey-company-questionpro-moves-hq-from-california-to-austin
Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/questionpro-buys-enprecis-group-from-bregal-sagemount-11608208200
Geekwire: https://www.geekwire.com/2018/survey-company-questionpro-acquires-workxo-bolster-workplace-engagement-tools/ and https://www.geekwire.com/2014/online-survey-company-questionpro-buys-rapidengage/ and https://www.geekwire.com/2020/tech-moves-payscale-hires-kristin-boraas-general-counsel-alan-levy-joins-proprio-board/
Forbes: An article with more than 8 years old: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2021/07/28/five-ways-to-make-the-most-of-your-data/?sh=750f5b94ddb4

Also, more than one paragraph mentions:

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/business/onslaught-of-surveys-is-fraying-customer-patience.html

Also ranked #172 on the Inc. 5000 in 2008: https://www.inc.com/profile/survey-analytics SeaWhiteBird (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and the references posted above fail as follows:
- Reuters reference is entirely based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- New Statesman reference is also based entirely on a company announcement. For example here are some other articles covering the same announcment including the posting on the company website. Fails ORGIND
- WSJ article follows a company announcement and an interview with the CEO, there is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- The three Geekwire references are each entirely based on company announcements with no "Independent Content", they all fail ORGIND.
- Forbes "sites" reference is from the "paid program" and fails WP:RS. Not sure why its mentioned either since it doesn't even mention the topic company
- NYT reference is a mere mention-in-passing along with another similar company, contains no information about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP requirements. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Jane Stead[edit]

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

No starring or significant roles so does not meet WP:NACTOR or GNG. No WP:SIGCOV about career either. – DarkGlow • 22:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basic google search has nothing but mirrors and trivial mentions, Google News has nothing, Google Books is mostly mentions of people named Jane on the same page as mentions of flowers or homesteads. Nothing that would support meeting GNG. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has had a few minor roles but nothing significant enough to ascertain sufficient notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anker Innovations[edit]

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

Per my comments at the DRV. The current sources in the article are:

LinkedIn profile
a Forbes contributor page (so no editorial oversight - it's basically a WP:SPS)
a database-like profile on Bloomberg (no indication this is a selective database, and also run-of-the-mill)
a review of company products on Digital Trends which might be the nearest thing to actual acceptable coverage. However, reviews are best treated with caution (WP:PRODUCTREV), and this is basically just a product listing, mostly giving off features and release dates. Very little information about the company itself, beyond the very first paragraph.
an extended interview on The Verge. (so not independent from the subject...)

That is all, at best, very dubious, and certainly insufficient to show SIGCOV. I've tried looking for other sources, but I only find more of the same (databases, social media profiles, company-published sources, a few blogs, ...).

TLDR; a spectacular fail of WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough WP:ORGCRIT compliant sources to meet WP:NCORP

Schmidt, Blake; Feng, Venus (2018-05-21). "Amazon helps Shenzhen entrepreneur turn mom's money into a billion dollars". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2021-08-05.
"Anker, the Chinese startup behind Amazon's most popular power banks". South China Morning Post. 2018-08-31. Retrieved 2021-08-05.
Stone, Brad (2021-05-11). Amazon Unbound: Jeff Bezos and the Invention of a Global Empire. Simon and Schuster. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-9821-3261-3.

And some other weaker sources:

Krokou, Danai (2018-12-11). Entering the Chinese e-Merging Market. Business Expert Press. ISBN 978-1-948976-50-3.
"Demand grows for tiny phone chargers using 'new silicon'". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2021-08-05.

Jumpytoo Talk 04:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to do a thorough check now, but the first of those looks like an interview (or at least, it is clearly quoting statements by a company executive - similar to the coverage in The Verge). The others I haven't checked yet, but if this only gets a mention on one page of a book about Amazon, that doesn't bode too well either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The significant coverage found by Jumpytoo in The Japan Times and South China Morning Post establish that Anker Innovations passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. There is enough independently reported research and analysis in the sources to establish notability.
The Japan Times provides substantial commentary and analysis: "If he decides to proceed, he could have his work cut out for him. As of early May, two-thirds of the 21 China tech IPOs from the past year were below their issue price. ... Like many Chinese tech companies, Anker is also following President Xi Jinping’s goal of making the nation a leader in developing artificial intelligence. ...The firm’s expansion has come as Yang seized opportunities created by gaps in the technology industry. In the smartphone business, he targeted the opening between Apple’s expensive chargers and low-quality, white-label replacements. ... One of Anker’s great advantages is that it’s embedded with the supply chain in Shenzhen."
The South China Morning Post provides commentary with a summary of other reliable sources' view of the brand: "The Chinese brand, founded in 2011, is a favorite among reviewers. Other brands might have more advanced features, but Anker’s power banks are known for providing just the right amount of goodies at an acceptable price. BestReviews endorsed the PowerCore 26800 as “Best of the Best.” Tom’s Guide called the PowerCore 20100 “an ace in every category.” And in 2017, the Wall Street Journal named a combo of Anker’s battery pack, power port and charging cable among their top holiday gifts."
Cunard (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of WP:SIGCOV already shared above. There are also plenty of reviews of Anker products available through a Google search. NemesisAT (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, a major, very notable company. The current sources used are not a valid criteria for deletion, easily meets GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2445196.2445350

[2] ttps://journal.uii.ac.id/Snati/article/viewFile/550/474

[3] ttps://www.neliti.com/publications/219298/pengembangan-aplikasi-e-learning-dengan-menggunakan-php-framework-prado

[4] ttps://www.academia.edu/download/31241108/205.pdf

[5] ttp://riut.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/handle/1/13404

[6] ttp://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/1163/LU_733-sej.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y#page=53

[7] Lancor, Lisa; Katha, Samyukta (2013). "Analyzing PHP frameworks for use in a project-based software engineering course". Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). Sigcse '13. Denver, Colorado, USA: ACM Press: 519–524. doi:10.1145/2445196.2445350. ISBN 978-1-4503-1868-6. S2CID 8392578.

[8] Kreussel, Peter (April 2008). "Web Helper: PHP application development with Prado". Linux Magazine. 89: 34–37.

[9] Firdaus, Yanuar; Maharani, Warih (21 June 2008). "ANALISIS PERFORMANSI FRAMEWORK PRADO DAN CAKEPHP PADA APLIKASI WEB AJAX". Proceedings Seminar Nasional Aplikasi Teknologi Informasi (SNATI) (in Indonesian). Yogyakarta. ISSN 1907-5022.

[FOOTNOTEO'Brien200764,_65-10] O'Brien 2007, p. 64, 65.

[FOOTNOTEO'Brien2007196-11] O'Brien 2007, p. 196.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]