Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 18	December 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B.L. Indo Anglian Public School, Aurangabad[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, mainly listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:38, 26 December 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 11:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's High School, Mahua[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference in the article appears to be about Jesuit schools and not this one in particular. Outside of that, there's some news stories about other Jesuit schools and nothing in books that I could find. So there's really no basis for keeping this. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Adamant1 - no substantial RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:54, 20 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divo Zadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This is a WP:ROTM cleric Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no in-depth coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The consensus on bishops from what I've seen from prior AfDs is that bishops are generally considered notable; however, this is a very rough and unofficial consensus, perhaps an RfC is in order? Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there's been a recent discussion that supported their inclusion based on WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah there we go then. Curbon7 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep roman catholic bishops are normally kept and the run of the mill essay is not a policy compliant deletion reason - just another run of the mill personal essay with no authority at all, imv. Here is some easily found significant coverage here, here, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roman Catholic bishops are notable. Thank You-RFD (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishops of major denominations have always been considered to be notable. Very clear consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 22 December 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. Being bold and closing early. Clearly passes WP:NPOL.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exalgina Gambôa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. UPE? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL#1: a judge who has held national office. pburka (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone who "served as secretary of state for foreign affairs of Angola" seems likely to be notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, for WP:NPOL. - Naushervan (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable - passes WP:NPOL Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot tell if her position as a judge is actually on a level that would make her notable, but her position in the executive arm of government clearly was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the editors above about meeting WP:NPOL. Article should be expanded not deleted. TJMSmith (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 22 December 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. Another being bold moment for me today - clearly passes WP:NPOL.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Benyahia[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, possible UPE Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL as the president of Algeria's Conseil d'État. This appears to make her one of most important judges in Algeria, satisfying WP:NPOL#1. pburka (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, as pburka pointed out, she occupies one of the highest judicial offices in Algeria at the moment. Naushervan (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, meets criteria for WP:NPOL Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets our inclusion criteria for government officials. The article may need editing because of NPOV issues, but the subject clearly meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 22 December 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 delete. CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khamis Chuwal Lom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG likely UPE. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 19 December 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 Routine closure due to questionable nomination. I'm closing this early as there was no reason to nominate that article at this point. The nom wants to keep it. The conversation on the talk page is all about keeping the article. Its seems the editor who suggested AfD is confused on what AfD is about.

If one wishes to renominate this article with a policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImJayStation[edit]

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

A user on the talk page has asked about this being nominated for deletion, so I thought I'd nominate here. As the creator, I favour keeping it, although I realise that it may be difficult to fix some of the issues flagged on the page. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if anyone wants this deleted? I looked on the talk page and the only discussions are supporting the article being kept. Jumpytoo Talk 04:25, 20 December 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 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D.A.V. Public School, Balasore[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep on the grounds that there has been insufficient effort made to find sources. The RFC that amended the assumed notability of schools noted that "...Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media" This particular nominator has been tagging schools articles for deletion at a rate of one every two minutes and that does not leave any time for any sort of search at all, let alone in local print sources which may only be available in the relevant country. The RFC also noted that "Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations. " I do not in any way doubt the sincerity of the nominator, who may be unaware of the RFC, and I share with them a real concern about the notability of many of the nominations, but I do think a little more investigation and a little less pace would help direct the effort in a more targeted and helpful way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The RfC notes should not shall. AfD discussions can be relisted up to three times (given the circumstances), that's up to 4 weeks of time to at least provide some thought to these discussions. Additionally, the most important item from the RfC is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. You can make either argument about how there is no deadline to delete or postpone discussion about whether it should be kept or not. There are sources or no sources. That will not change a month from now. To make it clear, this is perhaps the correct speed to take them. – The Grid (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the nominator has AfD schools that have been soft deleted in the past. Pinging Velella just to let them know it seems this was a good faith nomination. Out of the 56 discussions they submitted on the 12th, 16 are still open, 1 closed as keep, and the rest were deleted. – The Grid (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I am content with deletion under those circumstances. I was concerned that proper care should be taken before mass deleting schools. If these were unsourced and previously soft deleted, I have no objection to a delete Velella ^{Velella Talk}

Delete No significant coverage found, mainly listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article clearly fails the notability guidelines. I couldn't even find trivial information about it. Let alone anything significant enough for it to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Boy[edit]

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

just plot; zero evidence of notability, no obvious book reviews beyond those listed in first afd, which are not substantial. ; few holdings in worldcat for this or his other books. , too old to draftify. Note; there are other works with the same title, DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the sources found in the previous AfD. The Pink Paper review, Gay Scotland review, and Publishers Weekly review are each a full paragraph solely on the book, perfectly normal review length. The Gay Times review is three paragraphs / a full column, an unusually substantial review for a newspaper at this time. This is plenty of sourcing for WP:NBOOK, even if the sources are not present in the article (per WP:NEXIST). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some edits to the article and have just noticed that the Gay Times review is actually about this book's sequel-- but it also calls Enchanted Boy one of GMP's best-selling titles. My !vote is still keep, plus folding coverage of the sequel into this article.~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a paragraph in Gay Times here, and another here (where Graeme Wollaston calls it one of two 'books of the year'). A two-page feature on Ritchie has some discussion Enchanted Boy and its sequel Enchanted Youth. Three paragraphs on the sequel in Pink Paper. One short para on the sequel in The Observer. Mention of both books in his obituary. Editorial calling it the second-best-selling book by GMP (not a RS contributing to notability, as a letter to the editor, but interesting & maybe useful for the article). Overall I think it would be plausible but a bit of a stretch to split this book & its sequel (referred to in the Gay Times profile as a "two-part autobiography") into two separate articles, but together in one article there is more than enough coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RS seems ok - Notable positive reviews in the gay press and other media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable book that was reviewed and reported about in some of the most important LGBTQI+ publications in the English speaking world. I'm sure there are more sources offline, too. Missvain (talk) 23:20, 22 December 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. ✗plicit 11:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhaya Varadeeswarar Temple, Adirampattinam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Source added are temple blogs and not reliable. No significant coverage found while searching. Venkat TL (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tamil news references added. One of 27 nakshatra temples, significant in Tamil tradition.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. judging by Google translation of the Tamil, this seems to have significant discussion. At least 2 of the refs are more than directory entries. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 24 December 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 11:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find about this was some trivial coverage of principals of the school that had passed away. Maybe a few of them are notable, but I doubt it. In the meantime though, the school definitely doesn't seem to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 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 23:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Zatlyn[edit]

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

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

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

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

Essentially every reference here, is a disguised autobiography (like the Globe and Mail article listed in the references as "Gale OneFile", which is just an aggregator), or a similar promotional interview where she says what she likes about herself, notices about placement on promotional lists (like two of Forbes multiple series of lists (Unless we are willing to accept that Young Global Leaders is a notable award; I consider it merely another promotional list, all of them designed for the purposes of PR). I think there's no point keeping promotional paid writers out of WP if we merely use what they got published elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources are still reliable sources. @DGG: (Personal attack removed) Gamaliel (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your thinly veiled personal attacks have no place in an AfD. Dropping such anonymous complaints (real? made up?) has no place on enwiki, and people with a history of these should be careful that it doesn't become a bad habit. Starting an AfD should also never be dependent on whether the article creator is a newbie or not, but should solely rely on the merits of the article and the notability of the subject (if notability is the AfD concern). Fram (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I understand, only you are allowed to post thinly veiled personal attacks in an AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to your infamous, deleted, BLP violating comments in the Signpost where you made false claims and hid behind a clumsy attempt at anonimity (to name just the most obvious example of this behaviour); you were referring to? Nothing? Unsubstantiated comments? Thought so. I have removed your comments per WP:NPA. Please don't reinsert them. Fram (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The comment is in no way a "thinly veiled personal attack" and the implication that it is "made up" is clearly against our WP:GOODFAITH principles. I will back up this claim that, yes, editors do feel hounded when entire lists of articles are put up for deletion when many of these article clearly pass WP:GNG. AfD should be about debating long term notability, and by all measures the subject as the founder and executive of one of the most prominent cybersecurity and content delivery networks in the world, with WP:RS coverage, should definitely have an article. The nom's claims that they are simply "promotional interviews" are off base when one inspects the sources. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't "assume good faith" when it comes to personal attacks. DGG has put up for deletion one article by the same creator, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammarrian Rogers (2nd nomination), which ended in delete. OR are you referring to the WMDC club? Perhaps they shouldn't all vote "keep" on articles edited by one of them and where the editors seem to be in off-wiki discussions complaining about AFDs and then attending these AfDs. Such things have generated bad publicity for WMUK recently, I hope WMDC isn't acting in the same manner too often. Fram (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG as she is the founder and executive of a top cybersecurity and content delivery firm, and has had WP:RS coverage from multiple outlets. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

abusive sock of banned editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

keep no wp:before - substantial coverage here [1], [2], [3], and more mentions here [4], [5], [6] we have list articles based on forbes lists, so deprecating this reliable source is against consensus. it would not do to have an article on the COO, but not the CEO: that might be a donna strickland moment. but i supposed banned admins do not care how bad they look. --Sheiktelex (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is not a "banned admin", and I haven´t even voted here (and am not banned obviously), so your cheap jibe widely misses the mark. But I agree that many admins don´t seem to care how bad they look. Fram (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are an intelligent person, why do you not write some content, rather than shitting on others work, for a decade, and edit warring on talk pages? --Sheiktelex (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing personal attacks is not really "shitting on others work", and as I have written a lot more content than you have achieved so far, your comment is again wide of the mark. Fram (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but tone police. how is that working for you? are you happy getting banned? no self-reflection book burner? --Sheiktelex (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA... Fram (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources aside, she is clearly notable. The article is also viewed an average of 5,000 times per month. People are clearly seeking out information about her. That doesn't scream 'not notable' to me. -Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, article views do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs seven more days to sort out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, making a mountain out of a molehill, most references aren't what they seem. Personal attacks as above tell me this isn't a valid discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, some of the references aren't of quality, but some of them are okay and there are others: 1 , 2, 3.. I feel like she is notable enough considering her work (Cloudflare). Not to mention, if folks are looking for the information (as stated above), it's worth working to keep the article in my opinion. I agree that we should steer clear of promotional writing and look for better sources. Happy to assist with editing and finding more sources. Jamie-NAL (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly none of those fly - press releases, primary sources, and Medium doesn't build notability. Missvain (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not a place to clean up promotional articles. The subject clearly passes notability guidelines. Per the following sources that establish WP:GNG

"Cloudflare Cofounder Michelle Zatlyn Is New Billionaire As Stock Reaches New High" - Forbes (not a paid contributor written article)
"Michelle Zatlyn Is Tech’s Newest Billionaire" - ETF Trends
"Atlassian names billionaire Cloudflare co-founder Michelle Zatlyn to Board of Directors" - CRN
"Saskatchewan billionaire, Prince Albert’s Michelle Zatlyn, becomes Wall Street tech titan" - paNOW
"Cloudflare’s Michelle Zatlyn on getting funding for crazy ideas" - TechCrunch
"Cloudflare co-founder Michelle Zatlyn on the company’s IPO today, its unique dual class structure, and what’s next" - TechCrunch
"10 CEOs Share Their Stories About Hard Choices They've Made -- and How They Did It" - Inc.
"Cloudflare co-founder Michelle Zatlyn on why she left med school and fell in love with tech" - The Globe and Mail
"The Story Behind the Canadian Immigrant Who Helped Cloudflare Succeed in America" - Forbes (not a paid contributor written article)
"How This Executive Balances Being a Mom and Building a Billion-Dollar Tech Company" - Inc.
"CloudFlare's Michelle Zatlyn: Co-Founder. Cloud Pioneer. Limo Driver." - TechRepublic
"The Devastating Decline of a Brilliant Young Coder" - Wired
"How to Raise $182 Million" - Marie Claire
"Cloudflare Wanted to Be a Boring Infrastructure Company. A Brave Choice and a $525 Million IPO Proved It's Anything But" - Inc.
"We Wanna Be Friends With CloudFlare Cofounder Michelle Zatlyn " - 7x7 (magazine)
"Q&A with Michelle Zatlyn, co-founder of CloudFlare" - San Francisco Chronicle
"Ten women who redefined success in 2021" - Techstory
"Cybersecurity as we know it will be 'a thing of the past in the next decade,' says Cloudflare's COO, as security moves towards a 'water treatment' model" - Business Insider

Missvain (talk) 23:50, 22 December 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. Also eligible for speedy deletion (G5, Ugbedeg). MER-C 17:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omasan Ogisi[edit]

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

WP:ROTM, likely UPE Spam. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non notable biographical article on an individual who lacks in-depth significant in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Notability is dubious. Chumpih. (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, fails all notability guidelines. MerliSter (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS here to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an inflated LinkedIn post to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:SIGCOV or other notability criteria. I only found name-checks in my search. TJMSmith (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ginbopewz (talk) 23:26, 23 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Dowling[edit]

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

PROD rationale by User:Joseywales1961 was Fails the notability guidelines of WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not yet played a game in a fully professional league per list at WP:FPL, fails general notability.

Contested because the article was previously deleted in June 2008 when the subject was 5 years of age.

His only appearances to date have been in the English 7th tier, which is three whole tiers below professional football so I agree that NFOOTBALL is comprehensively failed. Coverage is routine and trivial and falls short of WP:GNG clearly. The only decent source is this Lancs Live article but even this is little more than a basic contract announcement followed by a quote from the player. The actual independent analysis is very limited. Even if this is considered a good source, GNG clearly requires multiple sources of significant depth and I couldn't find evidence of this online. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the deleted 2007/2008 article was about a completely different person (Irish cartoonist). Giant Snowman 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right, I didn't notice that the age of this subject would have made that obvious. Not a huge deal, an AfD is just a PROD with more support, even if it might not have been strictly necessary. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD reasoning, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 18:03, 20 December 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. Also eligible for speedy deletion (G5, Ugbedeg). MER-C 17:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikenna Ikeme[edit]

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

WP:ROTM lawyer. Likely UPE Spam. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per the rationale by Timtrent, this is a promotional article on a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost sounds like a carbon copy of the Osman Osmini (?) article a few mentions above this discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 20 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørg Aase Sørensen[edit]

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

I'm very unsure if she meets WP:PROF and think there is a possibility she doesn't. The sources here are bad, one of them an eulogy published by her employer. As for PROF#5, "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon", her professorship was at a university college which is one tier below universities. As for PROF#8, I'm unsure whether Acta Sociologica qualifies as a "chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". The current editors at least don't have articles. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO#2. She made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her field: "The first woman sociologist to introduce the concept of women's responsible rationality and contrast it with men's technical limited rationality was Bjørg Aase Sørensen"[7], "Bjørg Aase Sørensen developed two concepts of rationality that were to impact significantly on Norwegian gender discourse"[8], "Within Norwegian Action Research, Björg Aase Sørensen was for four decades and until her death in 2010 a very influential figure, not only in the Norwegian scene, but certainly as much in the Scandinavian scene as well."[9]. I only quickly searched for English-language sources; presumably much more is written about her in Norwegian. pburka (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more: "...in the late 70ties and early 80ties in Norway, one of our leading feminists, Bjørg Åse Sørensen, introduced a paradigm shift within women's research."[10]. pburka (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find pburka's argument persuasive. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I wouldn't be so convinced solely by what seem like passing mentions in journal articles or edited volume articles (although they are indeed fairly positive). I do think that Acta Sociologica is generally the kind of journal that helps meet WP:NPROF C8, however. I'm at "weak" because I'm not seeing the citation record that I would expect, but the subject was active mostly in the pre-internet era, and the combination of the era and a language barrier likely explains. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka, it is expected that a scholar in another country in the pre-internet era would not have the same online footprint as a current academic in an English speaking country. Therefore I put more weight on the quotes found be pburka. --hroest 16:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kudos pburka for finding that information and showing us that the subject passes WP:GNG. Looking forward to seeing this article expanded with Norwegian sources, too. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 22 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Balcazar[edit]

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

Blatant advert. Likely UPE, part of a swathe by this creating editor. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ADMASQ article on a non notable individual who fails to meet our basic general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the [100 Women (BBC)] link not help a bit? Chumpih. (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does 100 Women (BBC) count towards WP:ANYBIO? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Do you still hold that position after improvements to the article? Silver seren^C 05:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the BBC articles linked, there seems to be some independent coverage of Giggle Knickers, which might be notable. I recall reading about them in respectable UK press independent of this investigation; see for example The Guardian. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage of Balcazar and her various endeavors is in-depth and sustained. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there an actual deletion argument? Because the article clearly meets the WP:GNG after I went and looked for sources and added them into the article. There's coverage of Balcazar going back years even before the BBC 100 inclusion. Which makes sense for someone that would be nominated for the 100 listing in the first place. Silver seren^C 05:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's expansion together with the additional sources clearly demonstrates notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~It might be better to merge into Giggle Knickers if anyone chooses to create that page.~~ pburka (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct the company page to hers if anything—many of the sources now cited predate that company and discuss other work. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection I agree. pburka (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the so-called fashion expert of Wikipedia, I rarely come across people in this industry who are billionaire owners or supermodels getting profiled by The Times let alone included on a BBC list. Don’t take this for granted. Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Also, AfD is not a place to clean up promotional cruft, etc. This is about if she's notable or not. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:ncorp--essentially all the sources are promotional, or placement on promotional lists like the 100 Women BBC--BBC or not, all such lists are useless for notability, or , in my opinion, even for article content., since this is tabloid style coverage. The company might be notable. Her activities prior to the copany certainly are not, so we coulddiscuss the article on the company separately DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are directly about her life and actions that led to her creating her companies. None of it is tabloid coverage. You're basically claiming every single significant piece of newspaper coverage is promotional? Especially considering the coverage is from years before she was put on the BBC 100 list. Silver seren^C 02:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as article was created by a sock. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three-quarters of the entry has now been written by editors in good standing. Is your objection that a sock is credited with the creation? Presumably we could find some kind of technical move to give, for Instance, SilverSeren (now the lead author) article creation credit if that’s the issue. Delete does not seem like an appropriate AfD outcome to me when the subject is notable and we’re not dealing with a TNT situation in the entry itself. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she was profiled in the BBC [11]. CutePeach (talk) 18:09, 25 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iseoluwa Abidemi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, likely UPE Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Timtrent, this is an advertisement taking the guise of an article, it is on a non notable singer who meets no criterion from NMUSIC and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. She's a national celebrity in her home country of Nigeria, receiving news coverage over the past several years from every major news source in the country, as is now showcased in the article after my improvements. Silver seren^C 06:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per meeting WP:SIGCOV. @Timtrent: Did you consider WP:ATD and conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE before nominating this article? TJMSmith (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Lots of content covering the subject significantly. Missvain (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 26 December 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. User:Athaenara deleted under WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I participated in the first AfD for a previous version of this article in 2017 which resulted in deletion. Since then the player has still not competed in a fully professional league, so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The only new source I can see is an interview with The42 which I don't think is enough to meet WP:GNG. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Salting means it won't be recreated again, and if at some future point he plays in an FPL, then we can re-allow article creation for this player. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt- The player is indeed not in a professional league or have a significant coverage. It's my mistake of not checking whether Irish Premier Division is professional league or not. 3skandar (talk) 17:43, 21 December 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 withdrawn. Surprised those sources didn't come up when I searched. (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party of Ivory Coast[edit]

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

Non-notable minor Communist party. Provided sources fail to demonstrate the requirements of WP:NORG. Could not find any reliable sources covering this party after a Bing search. Note that this may not be the "main" Communist party of Cote D'ivoire and is a minor fringe group following Hoxhaism. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be a bit of coverage of this party in French at connectionivoirienne. The articles certainly would have this organization pass WP:ORG if connectionivoirienne is considered WP:RS but I don't know nearly enough about Ivorian media to see if this is considered reliable. In addition to the coverage there, there is an article from Afrique sur 7 that talks about them substantially again, and that seems to be more of WP:RS. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch writes of an incident of political violence at the house of the party's secretary general, but the article does not largely focus on the party. I think that whether or not this passes WP:NORG largely relies upon the reliability of connectionivorienne. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:30, 19 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Medina[edit]

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

There is absolutely nothing on this topic (neologism - ?) other than a single book—Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India—, written in 2015 by one Venkat Dhulipala and book-reviews thereof. There is a potential article to be written about the book but this is not it.

The book has been subject to harsh criticism from a variety of quarters but not unsurprisingly, Dhulipala believes all of them (Faisal Devji, Barbara D. Metcalf, Yasmin Khan, and Manan Ahmed Asif) to be in the wrong and peddling half-truths, lies and distortions. In summary, we are looking at a ~~revolutionary~~ fringe work - if it were not, the concept might have stood a chance of being notable in itself.TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article barely talks about "New Medina" and almost all the sources are "background" except for the one book mentioned by OP. Obvious WP:OR. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, the creator even got a DYK of the article. A ridiculously ahistorical line—Pakistan was envisioned as the New Medina to be used as a staging point for the conquest and Islamisation of India, similar to the conquest of Mecca by Muhammad—was featured on the Main Page for a good 24 hours, based on a primary source. A case is to be made for why all DYKs related to Indian history/politics shall be advertised on WT:INB before passing to main page. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do they even read the article before slapping a DYK on it? Yes, we need to have a system of checking DYKs before they get posted. God knows what sort of stuff gets publicized there. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 will have an idea.

The issue with DYK is that it compels nominators to review other DYKs and thus, we see random editors reviewing random DYKs about topics way outside of their usual domains of editing. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I promoted the article and assumed good faith on the part of the nominator and reviewer due to not being able to access the print sources. I read the article, but it doesn't do much good when I don't know the topic. It did go through an admin after I promoted it and then was sent to the main page. Also, editors had plenty of time to bring up issues on ERRORS even before it hit the main page. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A BEFORE search brings nothing about this. Uh, this is without foundation: Allah's "secret design" for Pakistan WP:FRINGE. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources here, as far as I see, really discuss or establish the notability of "New Medina" Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per the nomination. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 16:17, 21 December 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 10:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Obasi[edit]

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

From here, Strong possible UPE article spamming on non-notable individuals who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them a before shows press releases, user generated sources, optimization of primary sources, pr sponsored post and unreliable sources which have their bylines as “Editor” which is indicative of an op-ed not attributed to any prominent author thus all are unreliable sources (pieces) The possible UPE editor has had their Autopatrol stripped, but now we need to do the hard work by cleaning up(deleting) their possible paid editing articles. Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable and were all created by the UPE spammer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~CSD G5 See SPI Non notable UPE Spam. All fail WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable marketing people and businesspeople who have used advertorials to create a faux appearance of notability. Reeks of UPE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all North8000 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I think we'd delete these even if it were not UPE editing. I suggest a SNOW close. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Sources seem to consist of a lot of trivial coverage, press releases, profile pages and questionable sources/blogs which may only exist for promotional reasons. I agree with a SNOW close. ASUKITE 20:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non notable UPE Spam. All fail WP:GNG --Whiteguru (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Chumpih. (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fails WP:ANYBIO they all lack significant coverage in multiple indepedent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adeaga Bukunmi. She appears to be a notable entertainer and at least deserves a separate AFD. pburka (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Pidgin, BBC Yoruba, and FabWoman all cover her by the name Kie Kie. TJMSmith (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - non-notable spam. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: procedural keep and nominate articles individually. Some may meet WP:SIGCOV. Obasi was covered in 2018, 2019, and 2020. TJMSmith (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and nominate separately. As TJMSmith noted, there is varying notability going on between these articles. Batch nominations don't allow for actual consideration of each article subject. I can only assume that anyone above who made blanket claims about lack of sourcing didn't bother to take the time to look for any whatsoever (WP:BEFORE), since there's significant coverage for several of the subjects, while others are lacking any meaningful coverage. Silver seren^C 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren an in-depth before was done alright, I mass nominated 6 articles in all and four have already been deleted. But if you can show me the sources that meet requirements which are outlined in GNG that show notability for any of the remainder I’d be happy to see them. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources that TJMSmith presented up above? Also, sorry, but MER-C's actions were completely out of line and I'm tempted to go to ANI over this. Trying to use the G5's as an argument is completely inappropriate. Especially since G5 is a worthless CSD claim. Silver seren^C 18:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, feel free to, but I’m afraid you’be inundated with clarifications on how CSD G5's work. Furthermore all sources provided by TJSmith are about this very individual “Victory Obasi” which Missvain already stated expressly should be deleted, now let us analyze the three sources TJSmith pointed to, this doesn’t meet in-depth SIGCOV thus doesn’t agree with the tenets of GNG that requires in-depth significant coverage. The second second source is pre packaged pr sponsored post. Their third and last source is indeed a fair piece but not only isn’t insufficient to establish notability SIGCOV still remains a problem, but a decent piece all the same, so in all we only have one semi good piece so as aforementioned remains insufficient. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore all sources provided by TJSmith are about this very individual “Victory Obasi”"

That is false. Please look at the above discussion again. TJMSmith replied to pburka with sources about Adeaga Bukunmi. Silver seren^C 19:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, wrong again, I analyzed the three sources that were pertaining to Victory Obasi, the other sources they provided which I’m yet to analyze are about Adeaga Bukunmi which has now been G5 Delete, which I taught you here as to how G5 works, which justifies MER-C's actions, so like I said you are wrong, please read thoroughly before replying Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Victory Obasi and keep others to be individually nominated - I did my due diligence and Victory does not merit inclusion due to failing WP:GNG. But, I agree with TJMSmith and User:Silver seren that the others should be examined as their own AfD nominations - individually. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Creator of all the articles listed in this AFD has now been blocked for being a suspected sock of the serial article spammer and LTA editor known as Ugbedeg. Celestina007 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with the notability of the subjects whatsoever. Silver seren^C 18:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which wasn’t what I implied, insinuated or stated. I’m pointing out how a G5 now becomes applicable, please read thoroughly before replying. Celestina007 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETED: Rotimi Bankole, Adeaga Bukunmi, Tobechukwu Okigbo, Funso Aina per G5. MER-C 17:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consolidating some sources along with the ones TJMSmith found on Adeaga Bukunmi:

"Kie Kie : Don't Waste Your Time Trying to Be Somebody Else". This Day. October 23, 2021.
"Kie Kie On the NdaniTGIFShow". Ndani TV. September 18, 2020.
"Kie kie: Adeaga Bukunmi Ilori sọ bí Elẹ́dàá ṣe gbà fún un tó sọ ọ di eèyàn ńlá ní àwùjọ àwọn aláwàdà". BBC World Service. September 9, 2021.
Chigaemezu, Ernest (December 12, 2021). "Social Media Influencer Of The Week: Adeaga-Ilori Bukunmi (KieKie)". Connect Nigeria.
Agorye, Jessica (October 16, 2017). "Get Inspired by the Simple And Fun Ankara Designs of Lagos TV-Girl Adeaga Bukunmi's". Style Rave.

She has a fashion line, it seems, and won an award at the Lagos Fashion Awards. I'll have to see if I can dig that up. Silver seren^C 20:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Designer Q & A: KieKie Walks Us Through Her Journey As A Designer". Exquisite Magazine. September 10, 2020.

She also apparently was featured in Exquisite Magazine and appeared on the cover of the August issue. Silver seren^C 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The closing admin should be aware that User:Luciapop (creating editor) has been sock blocked. Any remaining articles should be considered against that backgound. Some have already been deleted on that basis. The rules deprecate block avoidance and sock puppetry and do not reward them with articles. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so you're really going in all the way on trying to use G5 as a deletion argument, how shameless. Silver seren^C 21:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, thus far you have called MER-C's action which are in accordance with policy worthless threatened them with ANI, and have used the word shameless to qualify the statements of Timtrent. Asides this very AFD, I have been polite enough to explain to you in two different places as to how G5’s work [12] [13] but you seem to continue to be rude, if you continue this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or continue to be uncivil to your co-colleagues which is one of the cornerstones of this collaborative, see 5P4 I would have to officially report this very breach of civility to relevant notice boards, look! if you can’t make an argument without being condescending, rude or uncivil, then please do not bother to make arguments at AFD's, please and please I implore you to be prudent with your choice of words. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding the sources found for Kiekie: BBC Pidgin: trivial mention (X). BBC Yoruba: non-SIGCOV (6 short sentences) summarizing a video interview of her (X). FabWoman: just a list of 10 biographical facts about her, no independent commentary or analysis (X). ThisDayLive: written by Kiekie (X). Ndani: talking about herself in a video (X). ConnectNigeria: maybe SIGCOV profile of her, but also reads extremely promotional (√?). StyleRave: non-trivial, but mostly non-encyclopedic blurb on her fashion (≈). Exquisite Magazine: interview (X). I could see her receiving better coverage that is more clearly independent, so she's potentially a keep. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your input @Silver seren, above is an example of how you may make an argument without name calling or being rude, @JoelleJay, the crux of the article's deletion is that it is G5 eligible as it was created in violation of an ban/block, the article creator should never have created the articles in the first place. Your analysis on the sources is quite impressive for someone who I presume is not an expert in with Nigerian sources, from your analysis above you see how they don’t meet GNG, which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, thus, a major GNG fail, I also note you claim to have seen other sources, if yes, then if you could point me to the sources which give her in-depth significant coverage and are independent of her id be happy to see them and analyze them for you after this AFD is closed. You can show me the sources on my TP and i’d happy to do a source analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina, I should have phrased my last sentence more carefully. I haven't looked for or found other sources for Kiekie, I just came to the conclusion that she probably has more and better coverage based on my assessment of the sources already mentioned in this discussion. I know the article has already been G5'd, but figured I would add to what others had said about Kiekie's notability in case anyone was thinking about recreating the article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, First, I believe I should begin by thanking and appreciating your polite tone, yes it has been G5'ed and correctly so, you are correct, anyone but the banned editor evading a block can always recreate the article when the subject becomes notable. Infact I believe TonyBallioni was being too modest and kind when they undid their speedy close, as this whole AFD can be speedied under the grounds of G5. Celestina007 (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the use of G5 on the articles to which it has already been applied. This sort of thing is clearly what the G5 criterion is intended to deal with. Reyk _YO! 01:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that your argument is that G5 supersedes any deletion discussion. Meaning that any G5 deleted articles can be undeleted as a draft and then reposted as a mainspace article without any changes whatsoever needing to be made and with the editor taking responsibility for the article. With no complications of there being prior deletion discussions in the way. Thank you. It makes things easier. Silver seren^C 01:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading things into my words that I did not put there and I think you're doing it deliberately. Reyk _YO! 02:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as article was created by a sock. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. If the sock had been discovered prior to the AfD, they'd all be gone through G5. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victory Obasi, I've cleaned it up and unorphaned it. I've added some new references which demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. It seems ridiculous to me have mass-deleted pages simply because they were created by a sock but enough hot air has already been produced on that score and I'll only reply here to comments actually pertaining to the Obasi article. Mujinga (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd still delete Victory Obasi also. Utterly promotional article, with sources repeatingthe promotionalism . I don't think it's rescuable. As for the ongoing dispute about G5, I note that G5 does not prevent the re-creation of an article by a good faith editor, though I would normally avoid doing so unless there is very clear notability with excellent sources--and I would wait a good while before doing so . , My working definition of "very clear notability " is that it would leave an gap in the encyclopedia that would surprise an ordinary reader.- DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 12:30, 26 December 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 00:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn (CMS)[edit]

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

This software is only covered by https://lmwn.medium.com/ , the publisher, it has no notability. Mvqr (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Dialectric Mommmyy (talk) 22:39, 26 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017'[edit]

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

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

The Stuart entry is no more than a few sentences. I found no coverage of this plant that meets all 3 of criteria of being significant independent and reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem a sensible compromise to expand the 'cultivar' section on the buddleja globosa page to include a sentence or two on this and other cultivars, using the information available from reliable sources. Buddlejagarden (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the article having information about its cultivars in general, but my concern with upmerging every non-notable cultivar is the difficulty of establishing an objective criteria for what should be included or not. As there are hundreds of Buddleja cultivars, if we don't have some kind of strict criteria, the article risks becoming overloaded with information about non-notable subtopics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buddleja globosa the parent species. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a redirect seems unnecessary since a search for the specific cultivar would give the target article anyway. AryKun (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Buddleja globosa per the consensus discussion at WP:PLANTS mentioned in the OP. This would make good content as a subsection. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford, the consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics (and inviting the placement of more). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I will update my votes if that is indeed the case -- do you have a link to the WP:PLANTS discussion? I wasn't able to find it.Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#cultivars. Sorry, I thought I'd linked it in the AfD post. (And see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#Cultivars_2:_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tillandsia_'Feather_Duster' for a list of previous bundled cultivar AfDs, which were unanimously closed as delete). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I found the clearest consensus. Change vote to delete based on the number of cultivars in question. Might I suggest that maybe the parent article should at least have a plain list of all the cultivars even if there are hundreds, but nothing more expansive? Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a terrible idea and was soundly rejected as an option in that WT:PLANTS discussion. I'm not sure you have a solid understanding of the amount of scientific rigor applied to cultivars and their naming - it's none. Cultivars can be anything from long-term commercial products to something some hobbyist bred in their backyard one day for funsies and slapped a name on. Listing potentially dozens of non-notable entries at each parent species article gives them WP:UNDUE prominence and takes the focus off the encyclopedic content that actually serves readers. What does the audience learn about the plant species from a plain list of cultivar names? Nothing, except that some of them are silly.

(Side note - I put a strike through your original merge vote so it's more clear for the closer that you changed to delete). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 24 December 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. While this article hasn't been deleted, dlthwave's comments about mass-creation of poor quality stubs is absolutely correct and a reflection of current sentiment (as previously demonstrated at ANI quite recently). The proposal to stop the automated mass creation of stubs that will be put forward in the new year for consideration as potential policy will hopefully address this in a formulated way. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litva, Kursk Oblast[edit]

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

A user has created over 400 geo articles with the same set of sources, using the same template with only slight variations. Sources such as census tables and the distance to the nearest railroad bot are insufficient to establish GNG, so we're left with the question of whether a rural locality counts as a legally recognized populated place. I'm nominating this one partly as a test to see whether a mass TNT deletion is in order. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this hostility come from? Here I explained that I am not a bot – now you're going to suggest deleting the rest of a few hundred of my articles? Autopatrolled ThWiki1910 16:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user must stop creating low-quality stubs immediately. Per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_66#Automated_creation_of_stubs, this "large-scale semi-/automated article creation task" requires a BRFA. I do not believe that there is a consensus that we want mass-creation of pages for places with 1 person. It is highly unusal to list distances to the border or a Transport section with distances to highways and airports. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have elementary respect for the work of other people in Wikipedia. You see a similar page without seeing working hours that have been devoted to their creation. Try some of these articles to read, check sources, then you will see differences and you may understand why it could not create a bot. Creating a few pages a day you call mass? A bot would do it in a few minutes, not in a few months. If my logical arguments do not impress you, then do not limit yourself and apply to pick up my autopatrolled or immediately to block my account. Paranoic deleting action for over 420 articles? If English GNG allows the existence of small villages, in which there are often more houses than residents, I do not understand your campaign. Instead of geographical data, you expect historical essays with Napoleon in the background, letters of famous people who were born there or maybe curiosities like finding mammoth bone? With these places there are no sources on such topics, and this is the most important in every encyclopedia. ThWiki1910 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThWiki1910, are you familiar with our guideline on villages WP:GEOLAND? We do allow articles on small villages, but only if they A) are "legally recognized" (i.e. incorporated/part of the area's administrative structure) or B) have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. So yes, we do require more than just geographic data to meet these requirements. If sufficient sourcing does not exist, then we do not create an article on the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places... – all localities whose my articles concerned meet this most important condition. They are listed in the records of administrative units (they have an OKATO ID given). This is obvious. ThWiki1910 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, Litva is not its own administrative unit but rather is a rural locality governed by the Bolshezhirovsky selsoviet. Most national geographic databases such as OKATO will assign identification numbers to all sorts of villages, localities, etc. regardless of administrative status, but we typically do not accept this alone as legal recognition. I'm having difficulty accessing OKATO so would you be willing to clarify how the database describes Litva? –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An older identifier is OKTMO. OKATO is a newer, but both identifiers are interrelated (a bit like Celsius and Fahrenheit degrees). I have a difficulty to put a link to OKATO in infobox, because it is converted (in a "magical" way) on OKTMO. If Infobox showed OKATO, the link to the database would be: OKATO 38244831015. For OKTMO is: OKTMO 38644412316. Exchange OKATO to OKTMO. My all articles have sources (links): to selsovjet (the unit where the rural locality is situated), to real estate report, to postcode... What do you want more? After your correction, Litva, Kursk Oblast is only suitable for deleting – one line. Why? Because you can not admit your mistake? Be serious. I am. ThWiki1910 1:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying OKATO/OKTMO. I'm not seeing anything in the database entry that establishes this as a legally recognized settlement. The problem with the other information you added is that it is not specific to Litva. Yes, the selsoviet has a website with a subpage for Bolshezhirovsky village council, but nothing about Litva. Postcode 307114 encompasses several selo, and the webpage does not mention Litva. Likewise, the railway page lists a station that is quite a distance away and again makes no mention of Litva. This brings us to the real estate report. This is just an a cadastral property ownership map which does nothing to establish notability. You're right: After we strip away the superfluous "cruft", there's not really anything left that could justify having an article.

What we need is significant coverage, or actual in-depth prose that somebody wrote about Litva, from multiple sources. Something that we could use to write an article that covers more than just calculated statistics. Without that, we simply can't have an article, no matter how much work you put into it. –dlthewave ☎ 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who "we"? More like you yourself, unable to admit to being wrong. And did you understand this much? Are you suggesting that this locality (khutor) does not exist just because you cannot deal with sources in Russian? Was it really so difficult for you to find, for example, this document (pdf) on the website of selsoviet? You deleted almost the entire article without checking the link "Real estate report: Litva" because what? Don't you know that a postcode usually covers several localities? The fact that an idiot, using the GNIS database, treated the many mills as settlements, should affect the deletion of one in the series of full-fledged articles on real localities in Russia? So many explanations and still the same? Having fun? You are not really waiting for what I will write, so I inform you that all my articles I create, like "Litva, Kursk Oblast" (after your "corrections", it's simply trash), have reliable sources. If you do not agree with this, I only wish you (and your two loyal friends) a pleasant deletion of over 400 articles. ThWiki1910 0:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with DLthewave, a cadastral survey merely documents land ownership, it says nothing really about the settlement itself. These do not appear to be “fully fledged articles”, instead they appear to be bare listings padded out with information that is not actually about the settlement. Advise the creator to look more at news media coverage, book coverage (particularly histories), academic coverage and so-forth. The temptation to go through a database and create hundreds of basically-identical articles that say nothing really about the subject should be avoided. FOARP (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These Selo are manifestly not self-administrating (i.e., they are not a level of governance/administration). Simply giving them a feature/census-taking number does not actually confer legal recognition on the locality, any more than the US's GNIS feature numbers, or census-tracts, confer legal recognition on a populated place. What you're left with when you take out the automatically-generated cruft is a bare gazetteer listing, but Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. The problem of giving autopatrolled to people who create large numbers of low-quality articles is demonstrated above: it is taken as an endorsement of the creation of those articles. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actual Russian place with registered population in the census, passes GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page was blanked after the nomination and before reaching consensus. This is against the AfD policy. I'm reverting that edit. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~unusually well-referenced, in fact, and more than~~ enough to meet WP:GEOLAND as generally interpreted. Ingratis (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on the quality of the references, though? Some of them don't seem to actually mention Litva. –dlthewave ☎ 05:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling a bit, I must admit, as I'm not able to open some of them, and I'm v poor at anything in Cyrillic. However, this (pointed at above by User:ThWiki1910) is an official document of the relevant selsoviet and confirms that the settlement of Litva is part of it. I can't access the census report but am more than happy to trust SportingFlyer's statement above that it includes Litva. That's enough for a Keep on the present footing. (There's a fundamental problem with the term "legally-recognised", which is far too vague to be of any use outside the US - in any other context it just doesn't equate to "self-governing administrative unit", although it seems that many editors (as above) want it to mean that: it doesn't, without a very full discussion which has not taken place).~~The alternative solution here would surely be an article on the Bolshezhirovsky Selsoviet listing the component khutors to which this and the other articles cd redirect. As always, WP:ATD.~~ Ingratis (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with FOARP. Also, sourcing is very unconventional, some are deprecated. Tame (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tamingimpala Which are the sources you think are deprecated? Ingratis (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)n[reply]

While waiting for a reply from Tamingimpala, which it seems may be a long time coming, I'll add that the sources include hardcopy ones, which I see no reason to doubt are bona fide official sources. As above, the article contains what is required by WP:GEOLAND, which is to say, confirmation of legal recognition and verification that it's a populated settlement. WP:ATD is always to be borne in mind, of course, but it's not necessary here, and for that reason I've withdrawn my comment above about redirecting.Ingratis (talk) 18:16, 27 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja 'Ingeborg'[edit]

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

PROD declined due to declined PROD from 2012. Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

The Hatch book is a comprehensive work that attempts to compile and list all cultivars. Snippet view shows that it generally spends about a sentence or two on them at most so I consider it database-equivalent as it is not selective. I found no independent significant coverage of this cultivar (searches in Stuart & Trees & Shrubs both negative).

At the time of the 2012 de-PROD, article creator even stated "Many cultivars are of obscure origin, and poorly referenced in literature." - in other words, even the creator knew there was no sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the dozens of other cultivars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 5 December 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 04:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buddleja globosa the parent species. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a note to the closer since I made the above comment in an apparent brain-fart state - RD to B. globosa would be totally incorrect for this one as it's a hybrid of B. fallowiana and B. davidii. Closing as redirect to either would be technically not feasible as it can't be redirected to two places, and there's no metric for determining which species would be more "primary" to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent species, there's no call for separate articles on every cultivar, even those (unlike this one) that are reliably sourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a redirect seems unnecessary since a search for the specific cultivar would give the target article anyway. AryKun (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Buddleja globosa for same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'Lemon Ball'. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete based on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:53, 24 December 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 and move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sikandra[edit]

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

There are four citations on the page and none of them mention any battle, the incident Rajaram looting the tomb of Akbar is made into a battle page where no battle was fought. I searched for it in many later mughal history books and on google books too but I can't find any source mentioning this battle. It was also created by a single purpose sockpuppet who has been blocked indefinitely. Hiensrt (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While three of the citations contain page numbers (e.g. "p. 717" in ref #2), these numbers always correspond to the total length of the source (e.g. ref #2 is exactly 717 pages long per the linked Google Books page). It seems to me that this is a misundertanding of the "pages" argument in {{cite book}} and none of the citations actually cite a specific page or page range. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the link directly takes us to the search term which do mention looting of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra but no battle. And these are the links that were provided by the creator of the article, so this is what he had.Hiensrt (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Appears to have been a real event, but "battle" seems to be overblowing it, with e.g. the Elphinstone link saying "vandalism" and The Cambridge Shorter History of India calling it "plundering". At the same time, all the references I could find appear to be rather passing mentions. For example, The Cambridge Shorter History of India (based on a Google Books search) has less than a full sentence on this. As all the references appear to be so passing, I believe this fails the significant coverage aspect of WP:GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As NitinMlk has found references to establish significant coverage, I'm changing my !vote to move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb. -Ljleppan (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb and remove the redundant infobox.

Irrespective of the article's title, the article's content is about the desecration of Akbar's tomb, which is a notable as well as a historically important event. So the page should be moved to Desecration of Akbar's tomb, as the sources use exactly this or a similar title while describing this incident.

Note that Rajaram actually attacked the site of Akbar's tomb, i.e. Sikandara, thrice, and two of his attacks were specifically to desecrate the Akbar's tomb. Also, he did lose 400 men in confrontation with the imperial force during one of these attacks. And we do need to mention those failed attempts in the article, as they are relevant to the topic. It seems the page creator relied on the snippet views available at Google Books, which resulted in the misrepresentation of a few details as well as the article's wrong title. Anyway, here are a few sources giving a full account of Rajaram's desecration of Akbar's tomb:

Richards, John F. (2001) [1993]. The Mughal Empire. The New Cambridge History of India: The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press. p. 250–251. ISBN 978-0-521-25119-8. OCLC 248496072.

quotation

... In 1685, Rajaram, a Jat zamindar at Sinsini, eighty kilometres west of Agra, strengthened a strongly defended fortress of hardened mud. Shielded by difficult terrain and bamboo/scrub forests these forts could beat off all but the most determined assaults. Already refusing to pay the revenue, Rajaram led his jat clansmen to plunder traffic on the royal road. They even attempted to enter Sikandra to despoil Akbar's tomb, but were driven back by the faujdar. ...

In late 1687, Aurangzeb sent Bidar Bakht, his young grandson, north with troops to suppress the Jats. In the interim the newly appointed governor of the Punjab, Mahabat Khan, a former Hyderabad officer, had encamped near Sikandra on the Yumuna river. The Jats boldly attacked his camp in force and only retired after losing four hundred casualties.

Rajaram's Jats outmaneuvered the local imperial forces and occupied Sikandra where they succeeded in looting Akbar's tomb. According to Manucci:⁴⁰
Already angered by the demands of the governors and faujdars for revenue, a great number of them [Jats] assembled and marched to the mausoleum of that great conqueror Akbar. Against him living they could effect nothing; they therefore wreaked vengeance on his sepulchre. They began their pillage by breaking in the great gates of bronze which it had, robbing the valuable precious stones and plates ... of gold and silver, and destroying what they were not able to carry away. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them angrily into the fire and burnt them.

Whether the Jats actually seized Akbar's remains, the desecration of the tomb was as Manucci puts it "the greatest affront possible to the house and lineage of Taimur-i lang (Timur)."

Dwivedi, Girish Chandra (1989). The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire. Arnold Publishers. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-81-7031-150-8.

quotation

... Early in 1688, Raja Ram attacked Mahabat Khan, who on his way to Lahore was encamped near Sikandara. A fierce fight ensued in which Raja Ram was finally overpowered and driven back after losing 400 men. The casualties on the other side included 150 dead and 40 wounded.²³

After a short while, Raja Ram reappeared at Sikandara and taking advantage of the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the governor-designate of Agra, he attacked and plundered Akbar's mausoleum. The Jat leader carried away the precious articles of gold and silver, carpets, lamps, etc. and destroyed what he could not carry. According to Manucci the Jats dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them. Muhammad Baqa (the Naib of Khan-i-Jahan) who was then at Agra, did nothing to frustrate the rebels. As a punishment, therefore, his mansab was reduced by 500 and that of Khan-i-Jahan by 1000 sawars.²⁴ The Jats also ransacked the villages, set aside for the support of Taj Mahal. Some Jats ravaged the environs of Khurja, while others captured the local Mughal officers at Palwal.²⁵

One noteworthy fact is that the local Mughal officials and soldiers in general, winked at the disobedience of the Jats and even secretly entered into collusion with them to share the booty grabbed by them.²⁶ It is also to be noted that Muhammad Baqa, the deputy of Khan-i-Jahan at Agra, had remained inactive while Raja Ram robbed Akbar's tomb. This exasperated Aurangzeb and he reduced the deputy's Mansab by 500 and that of Khan-i-Jahan by 1000 sawars.²⁷ Meanwhile, the daring and audacity of the Jats alarmed Aurangzeb and he ordered Raja Ram Singh (who was at Kabul) to chastise Raja Ram. But due to his sudden death the Raja could not resume his charge.²⁸

Pande, Ram (1970). Bharatpur up to 1826: A Social and Political History of the Jats (1st ed.). Rama Publishing House. pp. 7–8. OCLC 555482496.

quotation

... Mir Ibrahim, newly entitled Mahabat Khan who was then encamped near Sikandara on the banks of the Jamuna, while on his way to Punjab to take charge of his viceroyalty was attacked by Rajaram. But Rajaram was repulsed, after a long and stubborn fight, with the loss of 400 men, while the Mughals loss was 190 killed and wounded. Rajaram soon returned to the scene, and profiting by the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the new subehdar of Agra, plundered Akbar's tomb, taking away its carpets, gold and silver vessels and lamp, etc. and damaging the building. Khan i-Jahan's deputy (naib), Muhammad Waqa, did nothing to check him.³ They also set on fire the villages which had been assigned for the maintenance of Taj Mahal.⁴ Reports were reaching the court daily that a group of Jats had plundered the pargana of Khurja and arrested the thanedar of Palwal.⁵
The plundering of Akbar's tomb, and the parganas of Khurja and Palwal caused great concern to Aurangzeb. He angrily reduced Khan- i Jahan's mansab,¹ and appointed Raja Ram Singh of Amber as faujdar of Mathura to crush Rajaram Jat.² The vakil at the Mughal court requested the Maharaja to reach Mathura as early as possible, because the Jats menace had become so great that even the fort of Ranthambhore and the territorial integrity of Amber (Jaipur) State was threatened.³ Apart from this Ghalib Beg was sent to establish some thanas in the Mathura area. It is quite clear that the Jat uprising effected not only the narrow limits of Brij, but the areas right from the Duab to Ranthambhore. The Jats in this entire area, it seems, were on the move. But before Raja Ram Singh of Amber could reach the disturbed area, he passed away.⁴

[Few details about the second and the third sources quoted above: Dr. Girish Chandra Dwivedi served as head of the History Department at Kashi Vidyapith. And his above book is based on his PhD thesis prepared under the personal supervision of historian Ishwari Prasad. The book is probably the most in-depth source about the Jats' role in the Mughal Empire. Unsurprisingly, multiple historians specialising/knowledgeable in the Indian history of that era – e.g. Irfan Habib,^[1] Eugenia Vanina,^[2] Shail Mayaram^[3], etc. – suggest/recommend it. Similarly, the book of Dr. Ram Pande is also based on his accepted PhD thesis (see here), which he prepared under the supervision of historian Arthur Llewellyn Basham, and is suggested by Eugenia Vanina.^[2]]

As far as the historical importance of this event is concerned, multiple prominent subject experts, including the historians John F. Richards^[4] and Catherine B. Asher,^[5] describe it as an affront to the Mughal empire. This event also escalated the Jat-Mughal confrontations to a different level, as from here onwards, Mughals also summoned Kachhwaha rulers of Amber (Jaipur) to subdue Jats.

Finally, the weird act of burning Akbar's remains sounds like the last rights performed among Hindus. And it does have a Hindu connection: this was done to avenge Akbar's matrimonial alliances with Hindu women!^[6]^[7] Unsurprisingly, scholars cite it as a notable example among the notorious ones of its kind.^[8]

References

^ Habib, Irfan (2005) [2003]. "The Eighteenth Century in Indian Economic History". In Marshall, P. J. (ed.). The Eighteenth Century in Indian History: Evolution or Revolution?. Oxford University Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-19-567814-7. The detailed political history of the Jat kingdom has been painstakingly reconstructed by Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire, Bangalore, 1989.
^ ^a ^b Vanina, Eugenia (June 2020). "Princely Crime and Colonial Punishment: A Murder Case in Historical Investigation". Indian Historical Review. 47 (1). SAGE Publishing: 8. doi:10.1177/0376983620922414. The history of the Jat uprisings and wars is discussed in Pande, Bharatpur Upto 1826; Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats; ...
^ Mayaram, Shail (2003). Against History, Against State: Counterperspectives from the Margins. Columbia University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-231-12730-1. For accounts of regional political systems such as those of the Jats, ... see Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire (New Delhi: Arnold Publishers, 1989); ...
^ Richards, John F. (2001) [1993]. The Mughal Empire. The New Cambridge History of India: The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-52-125119-8. ... the desecration of the tomb was as Manucci puts it "the greatest affront possible to the house and lineage of Taimur-i lang (Timur).
^ Asher, Catherine B. (2001) [1992]. Architecture of Mughal India. The New Cambridge History of India: The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Vol. 4 (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-521-26728-1. Contemporary accounts describing the tomb's desecration by plundering Jats in the late seventeenth century indicate how sumptuous was the tomb's interior. Gold, silver and precious stones as well as all the carpets were pillaged. Significantly, the attack on Akbar's mausoleum was perceived as a blow to Mughal prestige, suggesting its continuing importance as a dynastic symbol.
^ Ahmad, Aziz (1964). Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment. Oxford University Press. p. 95. The most ironical incident in the Jāt history was their desecration of Akbar's tomb as a vengeance for his having married Hindu women, ...
^ Barlas, Asma (2018) [1995]. Democracy, Nationalism, and Communalism: The Colonial Legacy in South Asia. Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-367-01181-9. Incidentally, Akbar's exploits also led to the desecration of his tomb by militant Hindus outraged by his matrimonial alliances with Hindu Rajput women.
^ Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1996). "Before the Leviathan: Sectarian Violence and the State Pre-Colonial India". In Basu, Kaushik; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (eds.). Unravelling the Nation: Sectarian Conflict and India's Secular Identity. Penguin Books. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-14-025758-8. On the other hand, during the wars of the eighteenth century, the destruction and desecration of Muslim religious sites (and even royal tombs) was not unknown; the case of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra, desecrated by the Jats of Bharatpur, is one of them.

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per NitinMlk. Srnec (talk) 01:28, 21 December 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 to delete. There is significant support to merge the content, even among the keep and delete !votes. I’m not quite comfortable calling it as consensus to merge, but that question can be resolved via the ordinary editorial process. Please note that “delete and merge” conflicts with the site license as Wikipedia:Merge and delete explains. Chaser (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa[edit]

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

Per WP:Articles for deletion/List of deaths due to COVID-19 in South Africa. There is no need to have country-specific articles pertaining to notable COVID-19 deaths. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article serves zero purpose. If said person is notable in their own merit they will have an article already.Super (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the second sentence? Each person on the list is notable, and does already have their own article. The purpose of list articles is to make information by subject easily accessible. We have List of sovereign states in spite of each state already being notable and having its own article, because accessing that information in one place is useful, as here. Greenman (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Supercopone

, I strongly disagree that it "serves zero purpose" as it was a fork of the Covid-19 pandemic in South Africa article. The list existed there and it was forked as the original article started getting too long.--Discott (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 06:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale for deletion makes no sense. "Per the previous discussion", when the previous consensus did not end in a delete? The merge discussion did also not succeed - that article is too large, and uncited, and doesn't provide the same functionality. "There is no need" is simply a subjective viewpoint. Each of the entries in this list is notable, and the topic is repeatedly brought up in media, so notability should not be an issue. Greenman (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to List of deaths due to COVID-19. Unless that list gets too long and they decide to split parts of it off into list like this, per country. Dream Focus 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change to keep since it was determined in the other AFD that that article was too long and should be split out. Dream Focus 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Greenman as the justification for this article's deletion makes no sense especially given that it is a 'natural' fork of the Covid-19 pandemic in South Africa article. A merge with List of deaths due to COVID-19 is not a bad alternative but I suspect that list article is already too long as per Wikipedia article standards. --Discott (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick additional note: the original argument that the article is "Redundant" is no longer the case as the original COVID-19 in South Africa article is now too long to support this list being hosted on that article thereby supporting the forking of this to a new list article.--Discott (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Relevant information can be merged into other pages. In this AfD, others pointed out that those kinds of lists are not necessary. There are other ways to shorten the article about the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa but creating an unnecessary content fork is not a way to do it. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Covid in South Africa article is long enough already. Dream Focus 20:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist that the length of the page is the problem, then you should raise the idea of splitting the statistics and the timeline. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD you mention has one editor mentioning "Not all of these people even have articles of their own on the English Wikipedia." Also it listed everyone who tested positive for covid, not just those who died from it. That's why it was deleted. Totally different situation here. Dream Focus 20:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the only one of its kind. Why should it not be deleted? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deaths_due_to_COVID-19_(2nd_nomination) ended with "The result was keep. Consensus is the article needs editing and splitting out, not deletion." Dream Focus 20:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those who participated in that AfD suggested that the article should be split by year but not by country. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most don't care about people they have never heard of, so splitting by country makes more sense. That's a discussion for a talk page though. If people decide to do it by year instead, then this can be turned into a redirect later on. Dream Focus 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to List of deaths due to COVID-19. The issue with accessibility can be easily addressed with the sortable features of the main table. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of deaths due to COVID-19, as per Ajf773. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of notable people who die in many countries is enough to justify having seperate articles for them. This also makes it much easier to source the entries than in a world-wide article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This list would easily meet WP:NLIST. But I'm failing to see what advantage this list has over Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. The List article has no context section. I don't see the other columns (date of death, age, gender, place of death, and reason for notability) adding any useful context.VR _talk 18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those looking for information aren't just going to click on a random name they don't recognize. Lists are more useful since you can find someone you care about. A million strangers die, no one notices, but someone they remember seeing in a movie or otherwise take notice of, that's something they respond to. The age column is useful since if the person is much older than the reader, they might dismissive it. Same with the time of death, happened early on in, so not a concern. Place of death is something useful since some will look for who died in the area they live in. Dream Focus 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points.VR _talk 03:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "There is no need to have country-specific articles pertaining to notable COVID-19 deaths". Why not? The article List of deaths due to COVID-19 is very large, and people might want to learn about COVID-19 deaths in their own country. This article also includes more specific places of death (further geographic relevance) and more detailed "Notability" info relevant to South Africa than the List of deaths due to COVID-19 does. HenryMP02 ^TALK 07:15, 24 December 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 13:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[edit]

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

List fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPURP. To the best of my knowledge, none of the provided sources have discussed the topic as a group or set, and though it should be noted that I do not have access to all of them, no editor has asserted that they do contain such coverage. Further, a WP:BEFORE search has not turned up any such coverage in reliable sources.

There has been coverage of potential subsets of the list as a group or set, in particular the destruction of Armenian cultural legacy, and if there was coverage of the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural legacy it would be appropriate to group the two lists under WP:NPOV, but as with the broader topic I have been unable to identify such sources, and it appears other editors have also been unable to do so.

The list as it stands is also largely incoherent, with elements such as a "Small mosque in Armenia", without any additional details to its identification, being included. While some of this can be corrected under WP:DUE, most of it would, in the absence of reliable sources, require WP:OR to correct, in order to allow us to determine an appropriate scope of the list and criteria for inclusion.

Note: Article was nominated for deletion two months ago, with a result of "no consensus". The closer noted that the quality of the discussion was poor, and failed to address the question of whether the sources in the article sustain it in the light of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOR. As such, it may be advisable for participants to focus their contributions to the discussion in that direction. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I pointed out the pointlessness of such a synthetic list even when this was still called "list of damaged Islamic and Azerbaijani sites during Nagorno Karabakh conflict" in the first AfD that sadly wad closed as no consensus. Even now after fixing the title and balancing the article with inclusions from the other side's woes, and a huge trim of poorly sourced inclusions by the author of current AfD the list remains a highly pretentious work, serving advocacy of state victimhood but not encyclopedia.--Armatura (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In a topic area where discretionary sanctions apply, this is nonetheless going to be an unending snakepit of nationalist angst, even leaving aside the question of what defines a "cultural monument" -- what, every cemetery that was damaged in the the entire three-decades-plus of the conflict? -- or the issue that it was created to serve just one side. Better to just TNT it. Ravenswing 23:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, list fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPURP. And not enough good quality sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with above.217.149.166.11 (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 22 December 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 delete. Per WP:CSD#G5, the creator of this article did so in violation of a previous block (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarahkenny12340), and the article has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ninte - Record Producer[edit]

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

In-spite of being improving the Draft:Jack Ninte - Record Producer, the creator User:Sarahkenny12340 tried to move this into mainspace. Draft rejected by Delta fiver, Theroadislong and S0091. No changes after the last draft rejection. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC. DMySon (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means delete or draftify. I had tried to clean it up to be more suitable, but, for sure, you can draftify it. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: This title is probably the wrong one to consider deletion… try deleting Jack Ninte (record producer) instead. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Article has been moved since this AFD started. Please be careful when using scripts, may need some manual checking and adjusting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12. Article is mostly copyvio. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: It was a copyvio?? Oh dear, my apologies… I have never engaged in copyright violation… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I believe it was the article creator not you. The creator of this article copy pasted most of the text, which is a copyright violation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae — I see. I tried moving it because “Jack Ninte - Record Producer” did not sound like a suitable Wikipedia title. Anyway, I think I should take a wikibreak at this point… engaging in copyright violation is not OK, regardless. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah you're fine. There's no obligation to run a copyright check when moving an article. We have new page patrollers like me that check the copyright status of every article as part of our WP:NPP process. And your article move was correct, we do indeed prefer to put things like "record producer" in parentheses rather than hyphenated. One tip though: if an article is tagged for AFD, usually best not to move it. But anyway don't stress out, the copyright thing isn't your fault. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable and copyvio issues. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 08:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources are promotional press releases, no indication of the subject meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 sources from Pressparty and overall there is not enough news here to meet notability. Caphadouk (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and SALT. This is an attempt to get around the SALTing of Jack Ninte. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 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 13:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etisalat Tower 1[edit]

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

No historical or important value, plus no information or references MarkTHE19 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MarkTHE19 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:20, 19 December 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 09:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Star[edit]

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

The article says it is obscure. The text was copied from terribletvshows.miraheze.org, that has a CC-by-SA license but no attribution was given. Neither the show nor the ryoga316 YouTuber have significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12. CC-BY-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license per WP:COMPLIC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you are right, I thought initially CC-by-SA was good because it is like Wikipedia but I missed that there is a CC-by-SA 4.0 exception in COMPLIC.--Mvqr (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI added a reference discussing the series in the context of copycatting Gumball. A quick search in Chinese did not find anything useful, but maybe I am using the wrong name. Redirecting to The Amazing World of Gumball (season 5) would be a valid WP:ATD though. Jumpytoo Talk 04:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this complies with WP:GNG and no attribution given to CC-BY-SA license, plus WP:G12. User3749 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The copyvio content has been removed and RD1'd. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:23, 22 December 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. Daniel (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MuslimMirror.com[edit]

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

A non notable online website. The creator wants to promote it by creating a page here. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is one of the main news site of Indian Muslims. The websites has been quoted sufficiently by main stream media. The editor in Chief Syed Zubair Ahmad has been interviewed by various News papers on this project. Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express have carried stories about Muslim Mirror. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Penandpencil2021: Could you provide links to the stories about the publication? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb:, please read How Muslim voices are breaking stereotypes online published by leading daily of India, Hindustan Times, They're demolishing Muslim stereotypes, a tweet at a time by Times of India and On Their Watch by Indian Express. These are top three leading English dailies of India which have given significant coverage to this news website due to its importance in covering issues related to under represented Muslim Minority community of India. The vernacular press also regularly takes its stories from Muslim Mirror. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Penandpencil2021: Please indicate any conflict of interest you may have. The article appears to have been written with a view to pass our notability standards with a section called Notability. Please rewrite the article in a more objective manner. Jupitus Smart 18:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- User:Jupitus, there is no conflict of interest. I removed the heading notability. I don't want any undue praise for the subject. It's okay if someone edit it s required. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article which fails to indicate any notability. NavjotSR (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The article shows notability. Billshine (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:10, 26 December 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 10:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ismail Jasem Mohamed Alhosani[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG. Barely scrapes through NFOOTY by playing one cup game 3 years ago, which isn't showing notability per established consensus. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, disappeared since that one appearance.--Mvqr (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching his Arabic name yields next to nothing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 24 December 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) 09:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maul- und Klauenseuche[edit]

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

A 1950 East German documentary about foot-and-mouth disease? Can't possibly satisfy WP:NFILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability under any standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Documentaries can be notable. Once notable, always notable. Presumably there was some coverage of the documentary in East German state media at the time. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A documentary about Karl Marx maybe. Foot-and-mouth disease, very unlikely, even in East Germany. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As well, presumed coverage does not contribute towards notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG at this point. No reason for inclusion in English Wikipedia. Perhaps if sourcing is unearthed in the future, we can welcome it back. Missvain (talk) 01:05, 23 December 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. Consensus is that a redirect would not be appropriate since this will not be mentioned at the target article per WT:PLANTS consensus. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017') Star Mississippi 20:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja globosa 'Lemon Ball'[edit]

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

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries (such as the citation to Buddleja List 2011-2012 Longstock Park Nursery) are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

I found no significant independent coverage of this cultivar. The content at Trees and Shrubs Online is a scant few sentences, and the entry in Stuart is little more. Aside from that, all hits I found were trivial mentions or commercial listings. There is not enough here to substantiate a GNG pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 December 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 04:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buddleja globosa the parent species. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should not be redirected. Anyone googling for Buddleja globosa Lemon Ball will automatically find the potential redirect target anyway, and if we do redirects for every non-notable variety of any ornamental plant we're going to have a truly enormous number of redirects with no useful value. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a redirect seems unnecessary since a search for the specific cultivar would give the target article anyway. AryKun (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Buddleja globosa for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017'. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete based on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:53, 24 December 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 11:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Schweizer[edit]

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

Businessman does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- independent coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE announcements of him becoming CEO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strictly WP:MILL coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:49, 12 December 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 05:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, promotional. Nothing beyond stating where he's worked. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 20 December 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. Keeping per WP:SNOW. Improve and expand the article!

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Web3[edit]

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

Various issues:

Although there are a handful of sources that use the word "web3", coverage is essentially insubstantial or speculative, and some sources are not reliable. We are left only with sources that say "web3" but do not give a definition, actively say that it isn't something that exists and isn't well-defined, and sources that rely primarily on a non-independent source.

- [14] WP:RS issue in that it's an interview with an involved party and therefore a dependent source
- [15] A thorough source, but rtinsights.com is a shared blog, not a journalistic organization. It could be used to establish a particular fact in this article, but does not contribute to the concept's notability by documenting substantial journalistic coverage.
- [16] para 3 explains that web3 doesn't yet exist and that statements about what it is or how it works are speculative.
- [17] mostly reliable, but it's by a guest author and is primarily about DAOs, not web3. Web3 is mentioned in passing several times.
- [18] only discusses web3 by quoting from the company a16z which has a substantial financial interest in this being a thing. The article is about Andreessen Horowitz, not web3.
- [19] a reliable source that reports on the fact that web3 is not yet well-defined or implemented, indicating that it may be too soon to have an article on it.
- [20] shares a common source set with the CNBC article, and also relies primarily on people who are financially invested in creating buzz around this buzzword and gives few or no technical or definitional details.
- [21] is a corporate blog, which mentions "web3" in passing but gives no definition, and is primarily promotional rather than informational in nature.
- [22] shows that web3 lacks any clear definition or embodiment.
- New York Times sources:
  - [23] is an opinion column, primarily about financialized blockchain technologies in general, and again does not give a clear definition of "web3" or cite any facts.
  - [24] approaches a reliable definition, but gives multiple unrelated definitions that reduce only to a statement something like "web3 is when people use cryptocurrency and blockchains".
  - [25] mentioned for completeness; this source is about Semantic Web and gives a conflicting and predating use for "Web 3.0", supporting the lack of notability here.
- Techcrunch sources:
  - [26] is speculative as regards web3: "the next phase of the internet that many people predict will be defined by a wave of decentralization, digital goods and ownership-based virtual identity".
  - [27] insubstantial in that it mentions "web3" but does not give a clear definition, and does not report many (or any?) facts. This article is effectively an opinion piece.
  - [28] passing mention of "web3"; supports what it's intended to cite in the article, but not useful for establishing notability

With little more than speculation to source this article, the article we have relies for its notability almost completely on the fact that some people are talking about future plans. This would seem to me to be a concern re. WP:CRYSTAL, particularly points 2 and 5. With no clear definition of "Web3 technologies" other than as a synonym for either DAOs or public blockchains more generally, what remains is either product announcements and rumours (i.e. speculation as to companies' future definition, development, and use of the technology) or merely the next iteration of a systematic name.
This article makes leaps in its citations that make me suspect its writing is not documentary, but rather participates in a desire to will "web3" into existence. The reference to the sentence "self-sovereign identity allows users to identify themselves without relying on an authentication system such as OAuth..." [29] describes how in theory Bitcoin and Ethereum could provide cross-platform identity services, not a thing called web3. More, this kind of use of Bitcoin and Ethereum is comparatively rare in my experience, and their prevalence is not supported in the reference, which, again, is a marketing blog.
The contents of the "concept" section summarize that this emerging technology has not really emerged yet, and therefore it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on it.
What is left once the speculation and unrelated information is stripped away is an article about how some people are saying "web3" while they say "blockchain", and not much more. It's fairly clear that unless and until the term enters broad enough use that a widely-accepted definition emerges (and it is not certain that it ever will), this cannot develop into a thorough article. We ought to delete it. FalconK (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Web3 is a notable term. The fact that it’s ambiguous can be reported and explained to the reader who very well may turn to Wikipedia asking, “What’s this all about?” We can, and should, provide an objective answer. The problems listed should go on the talk page of the article and be addressed. No valid challenge to notability here. Jehochman ^Talk 05:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The sources cited in the article are plenty reliable and BEFORE searches return even more. Likewise, the fact that notable sources are discussing Web3 is sufficient to avoid TOOSOON/CRYSTAL issues. To the extent the reliable sources are still coming to a consensus as to what, exactly, Web3 encompasses, that is simply an issue to be dealt with in the article. This is no different than an evolving current real world event where the coverage continues to flesh out what the "event" is, who is involved in it, and why it is happening.DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Web3 or Web 3.0 is a notable concept. It might not be clear what it will end up being, but sources cover it such as: [30] and [31].--Mvqr (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). There are an enormous number of sources available to add to this article if you like, but the fact that the concept does not have one universally-agreed-upon definition is not reason to delete. I firmly agree the article needs improvement—though I haven't had the time to devote to it that I would like, I was hoping that my getting it off the ground would allow other editors to dig in and build upon my brief start at it, and to some extent that has begun to happen. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just listed a whole bunch of potential sources that can be incorporated at Talk:Web3#Potential sources. They include Wall Street Journal, NPR, O'Reilly, and Reason. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I know pageview stats are not alone a reason to keep an article, but it's worth noting this page got more than 25,000 pageviews yesterday. I imagine this was due to some news coverage that a few commenters mention below, but it's hovering between 5,000 and 10,000 a day even before the spike. I do think the need is there, though undoubtedly the content can be improved. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of interest in the topic, which is why I came here to look it up. However I wonder if a lot of it is hype. At worst move it back to draft, or put a strong improvement notice on it. Otherwise it will just be recreated in a few months. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For anyone who is looking for initial information on Web3, having this article way better than having nothing. S3rvus (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect and merge with blockchain - I'm a bit torn here. The term Web3 does seem to be appearing a lot more lately in the media. However what the term actually means seems to be just mainly statements from investors regurgitated by journalists, resulting in a vague description of "the word wide web on a blockchain". It doesn't seem to me that Web3 will grow out of the space of financial blockchain-powered distributed apps, and nothing concrete outside of that area has actually been proposed. Maybe the article needs incubation, and become part of blockchain for now? BeŻet (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Web3 is not equivalent to blockchain. This is an evolving topic, no doubt, but the last thing we want to do is redirect it to blockchain. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently as it stands, it's basically about providing web services using the blockchain. There have been plenty of project decentralising the web, like ActivityPub, but I don't really see anyone in the media considering that part of Web3. BeŻet (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the sources listed by GW on the article talk page? Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them, yes, and there we have, for instance (WSJ): This core insight, a sort of E equals mc2 equivalence between money and software, is why true believers in Web3 think it could have such a huge impact. Suddenly every activity humans engage in, from buying and selling a house to liking a post on social media, can be made part of a token-based financial system of a scale and complexity that makes today’s look like an antique Or Axios: Developers, investors and early adopters imagine a future in which the technologies that enable Bitcoin and Ethereum will break up the concentrated power today's tech giants wield and usher in a golden age of individual empowerment and entrepreneurial freedom. BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Jehochman and GorillaWarfare. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per other's who also want to Keep this. I don't see any harm in this article and it has quite useful information. ShadowWarfare 22:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's seems to be many in-depth sources about this topic. There's even a full length book about it and this piece from the New Scientist. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a term, but very poorly defined. In order to become eligible for an article here, a term should be, at least, well-defined. https://schema.org/DefinedTerm A word, name, acronym, phrase, etc. with a formal definition. Often used in the context of category or subject classification, glossaries or dictionaries, product or creative work types, etc. In this case, the term itself is not well-defined by any of the sources. Some referenced sources claim complete gibberish such as "Blockchains are special computers that anyone can access but no one owns" and and the same time "Ethereum is a decentralized global computer that is owned and operated by its users," (according to Chris Dixon, a general partner at a16z, which should scare any sane investor https://future.a16z.com/why-web3-matters/) Every computer in the world is owned by some entity, be that as it may, multiple entities, so this guy is clearly clueless, but he works for a reputable VC. At the same time, this is clearly a notable term, and that alone is a reason to keep the article. Ill-defined concepts can be notable. For example, an ill-defined terms within a commercial contract do not void said contract, but merely increase the chances that the terms of the contract will not be performed, or disputed by one of the parties. WP:CRYSTAL is certainly a concern since no live product can be attributed this "idea" without having to resort to pirate currencies maintained by miners, computers unclaimed, or digital assets with a meta tag reference sold as collectables on e-commerce digital marketplaces. It could be too early, I, for one, have no clue what this Web3 means. What is the https://schema.org/ServiceChannel where I am able to access it? Litesand (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Web3 might be a very new buzzword, but I see it used multiple times a day by Twitter users with 100ks of followers, in articles, in discussions and panels... The article as it exists today is weak, sure, and I don't like_web3 itself as a concept, but it's clearly notable, relevant and a good article would add significant value. In a few weeks we'll wonder how this was ever a debate. Ariehkovler (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A wildly overblown concept, imho, but the sort of idea that appears unexplained in news stories and sends people straight to Wikipedia for clarity and background. Flaggingwill (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (hello, read above note again, as...)

As mentioned, an ambiguous term, but the article is very useful as orientation for the reader. I came here due to some 'news' wanting to know what the hubbub was about. The article helped, even if the term may be bull. Please distinguish between BS and a needed article _about_ BS. The latter can be very useful. Shenme (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The definition and the concept is being actively formed out there, and this article tracks that. As long as the article evolves with the continuous refinement of the concept, it should stay published. LifeDancePro (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Just like several people above, I came across the term in a news article (Elon Musk criticized Web3), so I opened Wikipedia to check what it was. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 17:54, 22 December 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 11:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours

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

As I stated earlier on the WikiProject Golf talkpage, this article strikes me as an obvious example of WP:OR and "synthesis." While a number of reliable third-party sources are used, I believe they have been "synthesized" to create an entirely new, "original" page. From my research, I have not found anything on the internet that could be used as direct source for this article. In addition, the author of List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours has yet to provide one.

I would like to hear opinions from other members below.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The verdict should also apply to List of Swedish professional golfers, which has similar criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I firmly agree. I brought up List of Swedish professional golfers earlier this year on the talk page suggesting it should be deleted. That proposal was rejected in favor of "improving" the page. I did some edits on the page as did others but I still don't think those edits changed the OR flavor of the page, even remotely. I maintain the position that it should be deleted. Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
  - Disagree since the criteria of that list are not the same as those here; in other words, this is not List of Canadian professional golfers. Note: this comment should in no way be read as an endorsement of the Swedish pro golfers list or advocating creation of a Canadian (or any other nationality) one. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @wjemather: I guess you are technically right. There are small differences between these pages therefore this verdict should not apply elsewhere. However, I will create a proposal to delete List of Swedish professional golfers after discussion is closed here. Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN due to an apparent lack of independent coverage of either of these intersections (Canadians and PGA Tour winners, and Canadians and LPGA Tour winners); WP:NOT (non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and WP:NOTSTATS) is also of relevance here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; this nomination was preceded by this discussion at WT:GOLF. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Media guide notes the PGA winners, but otherwise no significant coverage of the topic. Nigej (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:LISTN. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:52, 24 December 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 Progress Rail. ✗plicit 10:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Rail GT38CU-3[edit]

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

Searching online for this train, I'm unable to find any significant coverage of this model outside of Wikipedia itself (if you can call this stub significant coverage). I'd expect coverage to be online, since the article says the train only has been built since 2019. As a result, this fails WP:GNG. Per WP:NPRODUCT, I propose that this article be redirected to Progress Rail, which appears to be the company most closely associated with this product, if there is a source that can be used to verify that this model of locomotive actually exists. If such a source cannot be found, deletion would be appropriate. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Progress Rail. I was able to find this: [32] by searching under an alternative name for the model, "Aurizon 2700 class". This at least verifies this model of locomotive exists. There's not enough coverage for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as a deletion alternative. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 26 December 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 Batuque FC. Consensus exists between 'delete' and 'merge' not to retain, choosing this option as has most support and per ATD. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Batuque FC players[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS. Unnecessary list - there is already a category for this. It's not like there are many notable Batuque FC players either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 17 links to articles for individual players, so its a valid list article. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly states not to delete a list because you prefer a category. Dream Focus 07:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list article. Multiple notable subjects, and the topic of Batuque FC players is an obvious set.--Mvqr (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a complete list of entries in this list would have far too many non-notable entries, the blue links existing would be swamped. Does this meet WP:NLIST? Don't think so. Giant Snowman 18:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This belongs as a section on the club page at best. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a very large number of lists for FC players for various nations. Category:Lists of association football players by club list all the lists for each nation, and each national sub-category then has all the lists like this one, listing each team in their nation and its players. You also have lists of players for other games such as List of NHL players, List of esports players, List of chess players. Why would you list all the FC players on all the teams in other nations, but not list this one? Category:Lists of association football players by club in England has 139 things listed. Some teams have multiple lists, broken up by year because of their length. Dream Focus 22:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of association football players by club only has subcategories for 36 countries, and most of these have less than 5 clubs. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point? Smaller countries have fewer clubs, but that doesn't make them less notable. Dream Focus 13:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - comments There are lots of these types of lists, yes WP:NLIST needs to be followed, if this is done correctly and this list cleaned up I have nothing against it. I don't really see how WP:NOTSTATS applies to this as a delete argument, this is a pretty specific article. A list of players for a club, I would not call that indiscriminate information. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Club article could use it ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. No need for separate article. Nigej (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. Notability is inherited and article size is not an issue. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:49, 25 December 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) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Flannery[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. While she has a local reputation, she has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has three reviews of her shows. A Google search brings up a write-up from her gallery (which may be a coop). The article has had a notablility tag since 2010 with ho noticeable improvements.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I can't find much, but perhaps [33] and [34] are sufficient to sustain a little stub. Vexations (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have added those citations to the article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. Lamona (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by sources which were added by Vexations, passes WP:GNG. Ginbopewz (talk) 22:57, 23 December 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. Chinese RS with significant coverage were found, happy to withdraw the nomination. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hsu[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and is currently cited to a single, not terribly credible-looking source. I wasn't able to find any additional coverage in English. I am unable to effectively search in Chinese, so that is one possible place to look for coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's plenty of sources I think. However, it would seem that the internet is not best source for them. I hate to be the sole person responsible for this page, particularly since I have no time for wikipedia at the moment. Regardless, I have copied the source code for Adam Hsu if deletion occurs and work it for future release. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be a lot to be allusion to Adam Hsu in Black Belt Magazine atleast, according to Google Books.^[1]. Sept 1988 issue has one of his columns.^[2]
- Hsu has also contributed to Kodo Ancient Ways by Kensho Furuya (ISBN 0897501365) - page 215.^[3].
- Also alluded to in "Women in the Martial Arts" by Carol A. Wiley (1556431368) - Page 36.^[4].
- Hsu is also referenced in "The Way of Qigong: The Art and Science of Chinese Energy Healing" by Kenneth S. Cohen (ISBN 1984800426)^[5]
- Hsu's expertise has been used in works of Michael DeMarco, like Chen T'ai Chi, Volume 1: Traditional Instructions from the Chen Village (ISBN 1893765083)^[6] and Foundations of Korean Martial Arts: Masters, Manuals and Combative Techniques (ISBN 1893765431)^[7]

Etc. And please, have mercy. I *literally* am not fully available for this discussion and it would be scummy burn the house down with my back turned. Give at least time till Week 52 for me to fully be ready to talk this.

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=adam+hsu
^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=6NoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV96mL0u_0AhUymYsKHeGlDX0Q6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=LM-4YqzVmdMC&pg=PA215&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj06_q20-_0AhXns4sKHVaACtw4HhDoAXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=9opbFIS9MHsC&pg=PA36&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF1rmO1O_0AhVHw4sKHREJCBI4MhDoAXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=WhB0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA374&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN39nZ1O_0AhVkx4sKHUt5AQ84PBDoAXoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=oz8QEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT174&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN39nZ1O_0AhVkx4sKHUt5AQ84PBDoAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=hf0QEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT36&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwktiT1e_0AhWslosKHXU2C9A4RhDoAXoECAoQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

-- TrickShotFinn (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 何定照 (2013-09-27). "雲門彈腿祕笈展功夫" [The secret art of Cloud Gate Dance Theater's Tán Tuǐ. Demonstrating kung fu]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A25.
  The article notes: "武術家徐紀十三年前開始教雲門彈腿、內家拳，奠定雲門更豐富的東方特色。... 徐紀昨天發表「十路彈腿」（聯經出版）新書，希望藉圖文並茂的動作講解，讓更多人受惠彈腿好處。「武術就像農業，我是老農，在雲門舞蹈教室教授武術的老師是小農；我們一起沾滿兩腿的泥、滿手弄髒，不論晴天下雨，都像面向大地背朝天的農人一樣，希望能耕耘出一些東西。」... 擁有師大國文碩士學位的徐紀，高中起隨父學彈腿，展開武術生涯至今近一甲子，曾入選全美十大武術高手等。他表示來自北派武術的彈腿，是中國武術入門基礎，「就像學英文要先學文法，學好了就能活用無窮。」"
  From Google Translate: "The martial artist Adam Hsu started teaching Cloud Gate Tán Tuǐ and Internal Boxing 13 years ago, laying the foundation for the richer oriental characteristics of Cloud Gate.... Adam Hsu published a new book "Ten Ways Kickboxing" (Lianjing Publishing) yesterday, hoping to borrow pictures and texts. The explanation of the movements will allow more people to benefit from the benefits of kicking. 'Martial arts is like agriculture. I am an old farmer. The teacher who teaches martial arts in the Cloud Gate dance classroom is a small farmer. Together, we are covered with mud on our legs and dirty hands. No matter it is sunny or rainy, we are like farmers facing the earth with their backs upside down. I hope I can cultivate something.' ... Adam Hsu, who has a master's degree in Chinese literature at the National Normal University, started to learn Tán Tuǐ from his father in high school. He said that the Tán Tuǐ from the northern school of martial arts is the foundation of Chinese martial arts. "It's like learning English before you learn grammar. Once you learn it, you can use it endlessly."
2. 家庭, Volumes 224-227 (in Chinese). Taiwan: zh:台視文化公司. Taiwan Television. 1995. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "自幼習武的徐紀,從武術大師劉雲樵等名家這樣的練功,不但可以改變情緒(穩定浮躁、不為師。自大師疫,徐紀成為欲攀登武林極拳的「安、緊張、易怒) ,同時也能促進血液循環、新陳代謝、減緩衰老。由此前進」者,他在美國舊金山創武塾授徒十幾在高談生活品質可以 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Adam Hsu, who has been practicing martial arts since his childhood, has practiced from martial arts master Liu Yun Qiao and other famous masters, which can not only change his mood (stable and impetuous, not a teacher. Since the master’s epidemic, Adam Hsu has become a "safe, nervous, irritable" who wants to climb martial arts. ), at the same time it can promote blood circulation, metabolism, and slow down aging. From this forward", he taught more than a dozen disciples at the San Francisco Chuangwu School in the United States to talk about the quality of life..."
3. 地平綫月刊, Issues 1-13 (in Chinese). 地平綫月刊. 1997. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "這些武館大都是名師執教授藝,如止戈武塾的徐紀師傅,不但精通八極披掛,還對陳式太極、八卦、形意、螳鄉等拳術深有研究,他是八極拳名師劉雲樵的入室弟子,練拳已有二三十年,教拳也有廿多年了,他的徒弟已遍布全美,其中不少人也已開館授徒。"
  From Google Translate: "Most of these martial arts are taught by famous teachers, such as the master Adam Hsu of Zhige Wushu. Not only is he proficient in Baji drape, he also has deep research on Chen style Taiji, Bagua, Xingyi, Tangxiang and other martial arts. He is Bajiquan. The disciple of the famous teacher Liu Yunqiao has been practicing boxing for 20 to 30 years, and has been teaching boxing for more than 20 years. His apprentices have spread all over the United States, and many of them have also opened schools to teach apprentices."
4. Passing mentions:
  1. Cohen, Kenneth S. (1997). The Way of Qigong: The Art and Science of Chinese Energy Healing. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 374. ISBN 0-345-42109-4. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
    The book notes in a footnote: "9. Adam Hsu, "Matching Kung Fu's DNA," Qigong Kung Fu (Winter 1996), p. 21. Hsu, director of the Traditional Wushu Association, is arguably the finest writer on Chinese martial arts in the English language. His articles generally appear in popular American and Taiwanese martial arts magazines. Information about Hsu's work and writings can be found in the journal he publishes, the Celebrated Mountains Journal, P.O. Box 1075, Cupertino, CA 95015–1075."
  2. Wong, Jiaxiang (2015). "A Brief Description of Chen-Style Master Du Yuze". Chen T'ai Chi, Volume 1: Traditional Instructions from the Chen Village. Translated by DeMarco, Michael A. Via Media Publishing. ISBN 978-1-893765-08-5. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
    Via Media Publishing published the Journal of Asian Martial Arts. The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes, "Instructor Adam Hsu, now teaching in the San Francisco area, compared many Chen-styles while in China in 1986. Hsu, previously from Taiwan, wrote in a correspondence that ..."
  3. DeMarco, Michael, ed. (2020). Chinese Combatives: An Anthology. Via Media Publishing. ISBN 9798637688630. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
    Via Media Publishing published the Journal of Asian Martial Arts. The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Adam Hsu, a prominent bajiquan/piguazhang teacher and martial arts scholar summarizes it well within the following: [quote]"
  4. Smith, Robert W.; Pittman, Allen (2012). Chinese Internal Boxing: Techniques of Hsing-I and Pa-Kua. New York: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-0442-6. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
    The book notes: "The Sword Polisher's Record. The Way of Kung Fu. By Adam Hsu. A collection of essays about the art of kung fu, highlighted with over seventy photographs and drawings. Each section examines a different aspect of kung fu, including its foundations and principles, the future of kung fu, and most importantly, its place in the martial arts."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Adam Hsu (simplified Chinese: 徐纪; traditional Chinese: 徐紀) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:40, 19 December 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 Withdrawn. Bungle's sourcing has shown this did receive some significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. As there is not any outstanding Delete comments I have withdrawn this request. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aswang (1994 film)[edit]

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

This was a contested PROD due to it having reviews. This film fails to meet the required criteria in WP:NFILM. The reviews are by unknown critics as in there is no identified author for the 2 provided. I could not find any better. There is no indication of it even being close to meeting any other of the criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews at DVD Talk (a Wikipedia Reliable Source) [35] and a Critic Review at Rotten Tomatoes [36] meets the 2 review minimum for WP:NFILM. The TV Guide review [37] is considered a reliable source even if no author is identified as Wikipedia considers TV Guide reliable. Film Threat [38] can also be considered reliable as there is editorial oversight and it is not a blog run by one person. There is also a Turkish review at Oteki Sinema [39], which also appears to have editorial oversight and not a blog. DonaldD23 talk to me 09:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for reviews to be accepted towards WP:NFILM is not that it comes from a reliable source but from a nationally known critic, without an actual byline we can't confirm this. Reviews in themselves are not reliable sources as they are opinion pieces. This negates both the Filmthreat and TVGuide reviews as we have no way to know who actually wrote them, the same way we would negate any other news source without an identified author. The Rotten Tomatoes review is actually this one and I would accept that as being potentially a nationally known critic. That only leaves us with one acceptable review. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i'd probably also be leaning keep on this one, not just because of the reviews discussed by Donald D23 above, but as I have found some significant coverage from newspapers around the time, namely from The Capital Times which discussed the showing at the Sundance Film Festival and quite an extensive interview with the producers by Star Tribune. There is also another fairly substantial article from The Journal Times and all 3 are more than just passing mentions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Bungle's source have convinced me this probably is notable enough for a stub entry. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:20, 19 December 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. Withdrawing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daman Mills[edit]

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

No significant coverage available, citations are limited to routine casting announcements and softball interviews, does not meet WP:GNG. It has been asserted by the article's creator that WP:NACTOR is met, but my understanding is that voice actors, and particularlly English dub credits for anime do not comprise significant roles as far as the guideline goes (and for good reason too, because as we can see there is no in depth coverage whatsoever despite a long filmography list). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know where you got the understanding that voice actors (and by extension, English Dub actors) don't count for NACTOR, but this is blatantly false as NACTOR states "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities", thus including them. This has also been defended at multiple AfDs over the years, with the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Lenti (2nd nomination). Link20XX (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see standards have changed since I was last actively reviewing articles, happy to withdraw. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:57, 19 December 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. Withdrawn by nominator following provision of sources indicating significant coverage. No delete votes at time of closing. Fenix down (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friðþjófur Thorsteinsson[edit]

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

Lacks significance of notability. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article needs work (it is poorly translated from the Icelandic Wiki) and sources, a simple WP:BEFORE would have turned up several sources on the man that establish that he passes WP:GNG.[40][41][42][43]. Alvaldi (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the article and added several sources to it. Alvaldi (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above, there are clearly sources that show he satisfies WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG per sources added. Giant Snowman 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources highlighted by Alvaldi show that the subject meets GNG, which supersedes NFOOTBALL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the article. I am withdrawing the request after realizing the truth. Thanks to Alvaldi and other contributors for the good work. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 11:00, 20 December 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.

[Habib-1] Habib, Irfan (2005) [2003]. "The Eighteenth Century in Indian Economic History". In Marshall, P. J. (ed.). The Eighteenth Century in Indian History: Evolution or Revolution?. Oxford University Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-19-567814-7. The detailed political history of the Jat kingdom has been painstakingly reconstructed by Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire, Bangalore, 1989.

[Vanina-2] Vanina, Eugenia (June 2020). "Princely Crime and Colonial Punishment: A Murder Case in Historical Investigation". Indian Historical Review. 47 (1). SAGE Publishing: 8. doi:10.1177/0376983620922414. The history of the Jat uprisings and wars is discussed in Pande, Bharatpur Upto 1826; Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats; ...

[Mayaram-3] Mayaram, Shail (2003). Against History, Against State: Counterperspectives from the Margins. Columbia University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-231-12730-1. For accounts of regional political systems such as those of the Jats, ... see Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire (New Delhi: Arnold Publishers, 1989); ...

[Richards-4] Richards, John F. (2001) [1993]. The Mughal Empire. The New Cambridge History of India: The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-52-125119-8. ... the desecration of the tomb was as Manucci puts it "the greatest affront possible to the house and lineage of Taimur-i lang (Timur).

[Asher-5] Asher, Catherine B. (2001) [1992]. Architecture of Mughal India. The New Cambridge History of India: The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Vol. 4 (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-521-26728-1. Contemporary accounts describing the tomb's desecration by plundering Jats in the late seventeenth century indicate how sumptuous was the tomb's interior. Gold, silver and precious stones as well as all the carpets were pillaged. Significantly, the attack on Akbar's mausoleum was perceived as a blow to Mughal prestige, suggesting its continuing importance as a dynastic symbol.

[Ahmad-6] Ahmad, Aziz (1964). Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment. Oxford University Press. p. 95. The most ironical incident in the Jāt history was their desecration of Akbar's tomb as a vengeance for his having married Hindu women, ...

[Barlas-7] Barlas, Asma (2018) [1995]. Democracy, Nationalism, and Communalism: The Colonial Legacy in South Asia. Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-367-01181-9. Incidentally, Akbar's exploits also led to the desecration of his tomb by militant Hindus outraged by his matrimonial alliances with Hindu Rajput women.

[Subrahmanyam-8] Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1996). "Before the Leviathan: Sectarian Violence and the State Pre-Colonial India". In Basu, Kaushik; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (eds.). Unravelling the Nation: Sectarian Conflict and India's Secular Identity. Penguin Books. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-14-025758-8. On the other hand, during the wars of the eighteenth century, the destruction and desecration of Muslim religious sites (and even royal tombs) was not unknown; the case of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra, desecrated by the Jats of Bharatpur, is one of them.

[9] ttps://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=adam+hsu

[10] ttps://books.google.fi/books?id=6NoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV96mL0u_0AhUymYsKHeGlDX0Q6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

[11] ttps://books.google.fi/books?id=LM-4YqzVmdMC&pg=PA215&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj06_q20-_0AhXns4sKHVaACtw4HhDoAXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

[12] ttps://books.google.fi/books?id=9opbFIS9MHsC&pg=PA36&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF1rmO1O_0AhVHw4sKHREJCBI4MhDoAXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

[13] ttps://books.google.fi/books?id=WhB0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA374&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN39nZ1O_0AhVkx4sKHUt5AQ84PBDoAXoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

[14] ttps://books.google.fi/books?id=oz8QEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT174&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN39nZ1O_0AhVkx4sKHUt5AQ84PBDoAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

[15] ttps://books.google.fi/books?id=hf0QEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT36&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwktiT1e_0AhWslosKHXU2C9A4RhDoAXoECAoQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]