Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

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 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Al-Saadi[edit]

Laith Al-Saadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is that he was a non-winning competitor in a reality singing competition, which is not in and of itself an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of sourcing about him and his career -- but the article is completely unsourced, and absolutely nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have proper sourcing to establish his significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Promotional article, lacks WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many non-winners from The Voice who have their own pages. I don't see a problem with Laith having his own page. In fact, every finalist should have thier own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaskback (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People who didn't win reality shows can sometimes still go on to accomplish other things after their time on a reality show, and thus become notable for those things. Jennifer Hudson, for example, didn't win when she was on American Idol, but she went on to become an Oscar-winning actress and a Grammy-winning singer — which means she's notable because of what happened after she lost American Idol, rather than because she competed on American Idol. So no, the rule isn't "everybody who appears on a reality show automatically gets a Wikipedia article just for being on a reality show" — notability lives or dies on the depth of coverage that can or can't be shown in reliable sources about the things he accomplished after losing a reality show. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 18 November 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 13:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Road[edit]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable street. No significant coverage in RS (t · c) buidhe 22:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 13 November 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Ogbu[edit]

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

It feels as if Ogbu ought to be notable, but I failed to find it. The current crop of references is poor, and she fails WP:BIO. This was copy pasted from an AFC draft, and has been history merged. The draft had not been accepted, though one might consider that to be irrelevant. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Timtrent
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://epi.aiga.org/design-journeys-liz-ogbu No Interview with Ogbu Yes Yes Lengthy imterview ✘ No
https://www.fastcompany.com/90316464/studio-os-liz-ogbu-finding-clients-is-a-bit-like-dating No Interview with Ogbu Yes Yes Lengthy interview ✘ No
https://interiordesign.net/designwire/10-questions-with-iida-award-winner-liz-ogbu/ No Interview with Ogbu Yes Yes Interview with Ogbu ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/opinion/sunday/women-architects.html ? Opinion piece and behind a paywall Yes ? Behind a paywall ? Unknown
https://designmuseumfoundation.org/we-design-online-exhibition/liz-ogbu/ No Interview with Ogbu Yes No Just barely. Three paragraphs, two are Ogbu's own words ✘ No
https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/liz-ogbu-studio-o_o Yes Reportage on Ogbu's own words plus a critique Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/652231716/liz-ogbu-can-we-gentrify-neighborhoods-while-allowing-longtime-residents-to-stay No Ogbu's own TED talk No Ogbu's own TED talk Yes Standard length TED talk ✘ No
https://placesjournal.org/author/liz-ogbu/?cn-reloaded=1 Yes Yes No Two paragraph profile ✘ No
https://architectureau.com/articles/liz-ogbu-social-impact-design/ No Interview with Ogbu Yes Yes Lengthy interview ✘ No
https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/14776-continuing-education-community-engagement Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://aadn.gsd.harvard.edu/projects/now-hunters-point/ No Stated source: lizogbu.com - see footer No Stated source: lizogbu.com - see footer Yes Not unexpected since it is from Ogbu's web site ✘ No
http://welcometocup.org/file_columns/0000/0789/dick_rick.pdf No This is an Ogbu creation, see credits at foot No This is an Ogbu creation, see credits at foot No Ogbu is only mentioned in the credits ✘ No
https://ecodistricts.org/2019/12/09/just-green/ Yes ? Borderline. It has a very Blog-like feel Yes I'm on the fence, here. But it is coverage of a talk, not the talk itself ? Unknown
https://magazine.texasarchitects.org/2020/01/07/the-land-of-nod/ Yes Yes No Just a single paragraph ✘ No
https://www.archpaper.com/2016/07/visual-primer-for-social-impact-design/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/entry/visual-primer-social-impact-design Yes Yes No All about "Don;t Be a Dick" but passing mention of Ogbu ✘ No
https://fortune.com/2018/03/07/design-social-impact-community/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
This is here to aid the discussion and to counter the accusation of a gratuitous nomination. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those without access to the New York Times, Ogbu features in two paragraphs of that piece, one of which consists mostly of a long quote. Note that the uniqueness of her career is singled out for mention:
Liz Ogbu, who trained as an architect at the Harvard Graduate School of Design but describes herself as a "designer, social innovator and urbanist," certainly sees it that way. Ms. Ogbu’s career — she has designed shelters for immigrant day laborers and collaborated on a social enterprise that provides safe, hygienic and convenient sanitation to the homes of low-income urban dwellers in Ghana — points to a much broader definition of what an "architect" might be and do.
As she explained to me in an email: "In many ways, architecture is a profession that has been the epitome of the dominant white patriarchy, from most of the celebrated starchitects to the all too frequent obsession with buildings that are better known for the beauty of the object than the quality of life that they enable. I’m black and female; my existence is the exact opposite of that system. So perhaps it is no accident that as I’ve built my own path in this field, I’ve been committed to a design practice that is rooted in elevating the stories of those who have most often been neglected or silenced." Generalrelative (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative Thank you for placing those paragraphs. If I were to update the table I would note that this is not significant coverage, since it is only two paragraphs, and one is her own words, thus unreliable and primary FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite obvious. This is here for others to form their own judgements. Generalrelative (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:GNG - the source table put up by FiddleTimtrent shows at least three independent instances of significant coverage from reliable publications NHCLS (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has enough coverage and recognition to establish notability. Moreover, she's interesting, unlike some of the notable people who have BLPs. NightHeron (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG by Fortune, Architectural Magazine and Architectural Record articles. Minor coverage in plenty of other sources, to me, means that only barely passing GNG (with 3 sig cov pieces, one more than the bare minimum for "multiple") is a-okay by me. Also, could very well meet WP:ARCHITECT 2 (person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique) because her co-creation of what's covered in the Don't Be a Dick section has received a fair amount of coverage. Samsmachado (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the helpful source assessment table. AFC standards depart significantly from those of the community as a whole and so AFC is best avoided. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as others have said, the source assessment has been help. Passes WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep GNG easily met.Djflem (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is clearly enough coverage to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 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 00:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Eight States[edit]

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

I nominated this for AFD in 2019, and it was converted into a gestalt of three different definitions of the term. None of the three common selection criteria for Set Index articles are met: there's no discussion of "groupings called the Big Eight States", none of these are notable on their own (of course the old Big Eight Conference has an article, but that's a different term), and there's no reason to believe these three examples are the only thing called "Big Eight States". Maybe it could be converted to an actual DAB page? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:36, 13 November 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 00:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Governance and Funding in Education[edit]

Changes in Governance and Funding in Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an inscrutable two-paragraph essay on an unclear topic, not an article. Previously PROD-deleted and REFUND-ed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be a student project that should never have been brought into article space. It's more like an errant fragment of a term paper than anything that could become an encyclopedia article. The title is too broad and vague to give a sense of what the intended topic might be ("changes" since when?). XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit irked that the how-to editing guide from the Wiki Education Foundation advises, Once you have a few well-cited sentences in your sandbox, you can create a new article, or bring your work over to an existing article to improve it. No, dang it, that's not enough for an article, and students shouldn't be told to move their own drafts into article space. Those drafts are just not going to be good, which means that either we waste our limited time as volunteers cleaning it up, or it lingers around as forgotten cruft. I would have guessed that the official advice would be, "Your draft is ready to become an article when your instructor approves." Imagine my surprise when I found that the handout given to those instructors was contributing to the problem instead. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, looking at the talk page for the "Wikipedia Expert" I mention below, it's filled with requests for help. More often than otherwise, Ian (Wiki Ed) advises people to go somewhere else for help: their professor, their local librarian, their "writing center," the WP Graphics Lab, the education noticeboard, AfC, RfD ... Ravenswing 19:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenswing: Only when it's warranted (the person I send to AFC has not been a student since 2017, and has never taken any of the rather extensive feedback I've given them into account). I sent someone to the graphics lab page because I can't tell someone how to save an image as an SVG without knowing what software they're using or their level of expertise. And the RFD advice was an instructor who wants to learn more and was asking if that was the correct page. (My talk page is also one of three venues where I answer student questions. Sorry if I'm coming across overly defensive, but you are mischaracterising what I do.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @XOR'easter: Yeah, that needs to change (that's a relic from before my time). Not that we're really using that handout any more - the students are supposed to go through a checklist (included on p. 15 of that handout) and use a scaffolding system (visible here to develop their work. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shite student essays in mainspace due to university courses are nothing new, but the term is over and it has no purpose in mainspace. Hemiauchenia (talk)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - personal essay that has no place on a general encyclopaedia. If, by any chance, this is kept, then it should be moved to a title that informs us that it's solely about education in Massachusetts as the current title doesn't establish this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sorry fact that this was actually restored at WP:REFUND (with the threadbare rationale of "I still need the wiki entry for a course I am taking" ... and naturally, eight months later, we haven't seen the editor since) suggests that the REFUND process is deeply flawed. What is even more flawed, perhaps, is the premise that this instructor and this course may be requiring students otherwise unfamiliar with Wikipedia to create mainspace articles, a process that without serious oversight is almost guaranteed to result in wasting the time of other editors at PROD, CSD or XfD. (And, looking at the user page for the "Wikipedia Expert" for this course, it seems they do just that: "I am the Senior Wikipedia Expert for Wiki Education, a nonprofit that supports the Wikipedia Education Program in the United States and Canada, where educators assign their students to edit Wikipedia. We develop resources, consult on assignment design best practices, monitor and measure student contributions, and hope to bridge the gap between traditional educational institutions and Wikipedia.") Ravenswing 10:54, 14 November 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 Kyustendil. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Velbazhd[edit]

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

Poorly sourced content fork of Kyustendil and History of Kyustendil. Restoration of the original redirect is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If sockpuppetry is confirmed then no merge is required, simple redirection will do as this would be G5 territory. Polyamorph (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll link the sockpuppetry report then in case anyone is interested in its result [18]. Super Ψ Dro 11:47, 14 November 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 10:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Dictionary Kyustendil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable local history book. Might be useful source, but I cannot find WP:SIGCOV to in reliable third party sources to satisfy our notability criteria. Polyamorph (talk) 21:20, 13 November 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) Mandraketennis (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Doubles[edit]

2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is lacking its main and essential link to the double draw on which it's all based and the only verifiable external link provided. Since the link is unverifiable, it doesn't even open an external page when clicked, and it's the main link upon which this page is based, as stated in the Wikipedia Verifiability page "content without any reliable source to verify it may be removed", and since after checking i didn't find myself any other source of the draw, this page should be removed, as in fact stated in the Wikipedia policies mentioned above. Mandraketennis (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@sod25 I, in fact, did read the whole page "article for deletion" and related pages before submitting this and the other 3 articles. At point 2 it's enlisted the reasons to put an article up for deletion, and i quote, "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)."

So, while ALL the USERS above have read only the first mentioned point Notability, i have read all the 4 points, and found that 2 of them, verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article. The general consensus made-up above is apparently built on a false premise, that article deletion should be waged ONLY against notability, while the WP:BEFORE page clearly states that it is one of four. I hope every future comment will adhere to what is written in the guidelines of Wikipedia and not to some sort of agreement among editors, if not to general laziness to stop at the first mentioned reason mentioned for deleting articles. I really hope that is not the case, because i cannot imagine what the "internal" consensum could have reduced the other main guidelines, instead of applying what is clearly stated in there. I would also like to point out that user @spiderone made a suspicious number of cross-posting, 4 in a minute, which could be considered canvassing, and the two user above @wolbo and @fyunck could be considered as vote-stacking, since they already undid some of my editings and were against a recent proposal of mine, fyunck in particular was duly present in that previous discussion raising constantly arguments against it and mischaracterizing the proposal, so for sure they were not "a priori" in favor of anything coming from me.Mandraketennis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - The doubles draw is properly sourced with a reputable and reliable source (WP:RS): the WTA and their pdf of the main draw. And the article as a whole is verifiable (WP:V). M9155 (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@M9155 the link is not working, i am going to drop the good faith assumption since it seems nobody of the above editors was actually trying to open the link, they just post and repost the same wtatennis.com link which doesn't open but a blank page in a new window (on a new tab tries and close it istantly).Mandraketennis (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Link to wtatennis website is now working, still no pdf, but to me it's a detail. I am going to retreat this article. Mission accomplished. Mandraketennis (talk) 17:39, 14 November 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) Mandraketennis (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 WTA Finals – Doubles[edit]

2021 WTA Finals – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is lacking its main and essential link to the double draw on which it's all based. Since there's no way to verify the draw upon which this page is based, as stated by Wikipedia Verifiability page "content without any reliable source to verify it may be removed", and since after checking i didn't find myself any source of the draw, this page should be removed, as in fact stated in the Wikipedia policies cited above. Mandraketennis (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, did read the whole page "article for deletion" and related pages before submitting this and the other 3 articles. At point 2 it's enlisted the reasons to put an article up for deletion, and i quote, "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)." So, while ALL the USERS above have read only the first mentioned point Notability, i have read all the 4 points, and found that 2 of them, verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article. The general consensus made-up above is apparently built on a false premise, that article deletion should be waged ONLY against notability, while the WP:BEFORE page clearly states that it is one of four. I hope every future comment will adhere to what is written in the guidelines of Wikipedia and not to some sort of agreement among editors, if not to general laziness to stop at the first mentioned reason mentioned for deleting articles. I really hope that is not the case, because i cannot imagine what the "internal" consensum could have reduced the other main guidelines, instead of applying what is clearly stated in there.I would also like to point out that user @spiderone made a suspicious number of cross-posting, 3 in a minute, which could be possibly considered canvassing, and the two users above @wolbo and @fyunck could be maybe considered as vote-stacking, since they already undid some of my editings and were against a recent proposal of mine, @fyunck in particular was duly present in that previous discussion raising constantly arguments against it and mischaracterizing the proposal, so for sure they were not "a priori" in favor of anything coming from me. While writing otherwise in here, that the article had good coverage.. is notable and so on, the 2 users above @wolbo and @fyunck have been searched for better links, recognizing that that was a big blunder, ending up uploading a link for the single draw which i checked and in fact offers the Draw but only for semifinals and Finals, that is less than half of the tournament draw. REcognizing that was an improvement respect the absent previous link i uploaded the link with the correct caption "semi and finals draw", which was undid and changed to "Draw". It's still a link to a very partial draw which cannot resolve the issue here, so much so that none of the editors above in favor of keeping the article has linked the change to me asking to retreat this AfdMandraketennis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article has verifiable and reliable sources. And it had so from the very beginning.M9155 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@M9155 If the links were good from the start then editors shoudn't have rushed to find new ones, as revision history clearly shows. And that link is, again, about less than half of the draw, That is it's partial and its state is not clearly showed in the name of the link, throwing users off, and making Wikipedia looking an unrealiable source with botched solutions.Mandraketennis (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I am still not convinced the official draw, now available in pdf file, is up to the standard of usual wta tournaments' draws, but seeing the effort and especially the work on the wta finals page on wiki to improve this bad template by inserting the score directly into it, i've decided to acknowledge all this efforts and to retreat the deletion.Mandraketennis (talk) 10:26, 15 November 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) Mandraketennis (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 WTA Finals – Singles[edit]

2021 WTA Finals – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking main source of the page: the link to the single draw. The one present is a dead link not even opening a page. Mandraketennis (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huge Keep - you have got to be kidding right. This is so notable it isn't even funny. There's articles for the WTA singles event every single year. Fix the source if it's broken, but it's frivolous to call for a deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sod25 I, in fact, did read the whole page "article for deletion" and related pages before submitting this and the other 3 articles. At point 2 it's enlisted the reasons to put an article up for deletion, and i quote, "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)."

So, while ALL the USERS above have read only the first mentioned point Notability, i have read all the 4 points, and found that 2 of them, verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article. The general consensus made-up above is apparently built on a false premise, that article deletion should be waged ONLY against notability, while the WP:BEFORE page clearly states that it is one of four. I hope every future comment will adhere to what is written in the guidelines of Wikipedia and not to some sort of agreement among editors, if not to general laziness to stop at the first mentioned reason mentioned for deleting articles. I really hope that is not the case, because i cannot imagine what the "internal" consensum could have reduced the other main guidelines, instead of applying what is clearly stated in there. I would also like to point out that user @spiderone made a suspicious number of cross-posting, 3 in a minute, which could be considered canvassing, and the two users above @wolbo and @fyunck could be maybe considered as vote-stacking, since they already undid some of my editings and were against a recent proposal of mine, @fyunck in particular was duly present in that previous discussion raising constantly arguments against it and mischaracterizing the proposal, so for sure they were not "a priori" in favor of anything coming from me. While writing otherwise in here, that the article had good coverage.. is notable and so on, the 2 users above @wolbo and @fyunck have been searched for better links, recognizing that that was a big blunder, ending up uploading a link which i checked and in fact offers the Draw but only for semifinals and Finals, that is less than half of the tournament draw. As such the link uploaded, that i corrected with the correct caption "semi and finals draw", was undid and changed to "WTA draw", and eventually i changed it because it could lead to confusion to "WTA website draw". But it's still a link to a very partial draw which cannot resolve the issue here, so much so that none of the editors above in favor of kep the article has linked the change to me asking to retreat this Afd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandraketennis Mandraketennis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the original pdf link works fine. I'm not sure what the problem is. It might be a security issue but I think the link works if you open it in the browser separately as opposed to directly clicking on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: I've just added a direct link to the article for the Singles Draw from the official WTA site (I've added it to the general page for this tournament, as well). If someone can figure out how to do so for the Doubles Draw, as well - it's located at the same page, but is accessed by subsequently clicking upon 'Doubles' once there - and add those links to the two pages in question, this entire absurd "no reliable link to the draw was provided" argument can be put to bed. The nomination of this article for potential deletion is ridiculous. – AtypicalMale — Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep: This tournament is the fifth most important tournament in thea annual tour after four grand slams. I don't know why it is being considered for deletion. Abbasulu (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the deletion notice and came here to see which idiot wants to delete the WTA Finals page. lol Ashish (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JEnaashish94 i think this comment speaks for itself. A user who didn't even know what article he/she is talking about deserves no reply on the merit, he/she accomplished already to look as bad as he/she could in just one line.Mandraketennis (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@fyunck & @AtypicalMale I see the link of fyunck and it's not working (but that on the page is, strange technical personal issue for him, nothing to worry about in here). I don't understand what link AtypicalMale should have added. It's the same uploaded by Wolbo if i recall correctly. No new link since then.

And again, it redirects to the wtatennis website where it's showed only the semifinals and the final draw. That is to say, i need to put some number down, that link IGNORES, i.e. DOESN'T SHOW 12 of total 15 matches, but only 3 (three) matches!! A draw which doesn't show 80% of matches could not be considered a draw by any standard. We'll see what substandard some editor wishes to set here.Mandraketennis (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandraketennis But the reference link now provided from the WTA website shows the group stage, you click on each link contained in the group table to get the individual score. The individual match scores are provided on the PDF file. You literally do not have a leg to stand on.Alexxbrookss (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexxbrookss The link from the wta website point to a page (not a pdf file, in fact the "download draw" link on the upper right niche led to nowhere, but anyway let's get back to your point) where as i said above only 3 (future) matches: semifinals and finals are showed, in the usual draw format.

On its left there is a schematic view,a table to be red horizontally and vertically, of the two groups which sum up in a up to down, left to right template which could not be used to verify the score as it happens for all ordinary draw, (updated through the tournaments rounds) since it displays only the number of sets won per match, and not the games. Then on the right part, it switches back to the usual draw template. That is a monstrous draw, half one way and half another way. A substandard draw by any measure, a confusing template hard to read, incoherent, with a different scoring system, which switches to another template near the end of it. Not receivable.Mandraketennis (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a standard draw due to the round robin format. If you are going to take this line, you will have to delete all round robin competition pages. And if you download the PDF, you have to open it in Adobe Acrobat.Alexxbrookss (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexxbrookss and what about the round robin, then? Do they don't know what matches there will be? On the contrary they know very well and deeper than ordinary tournaments which matches are going to be played,... since the start!! So, the round robin is not an excuse for the tournament organizators not to upload an ordinary draw, they just thought to be "creative" developing a disaster of draw upon the group (to the point they don't even offer the score by game, but only by sets), generating that monstruosity of double template of draw, 80% one way, 20% the usual way we see on the wta pages. I know other round robin tournament are that way ( ATP Finals you're up), but if an usual (i'd say a coherent) draw is not possible, then no single & double page should be uploaded, wikipedia will have the main page for this year edition and people are free to go to the official website and trying to figure it out what exactly that cumbersome scheme with players names means. I don't see any problem with that. There are too much with uploading that monstruosity of draw on wiki, as i mentioned above.Mandraketennis (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. This is absolute insanity. Alexxbrookss (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While taking a good look at the ATP Finals' draw (pretty much identical to the WTA Finals) i find out this link https://www.nittoatpfinals.com/en/official-programme/overview and by clicking on the pdf, there's a good draw template on page 51 for single, and on page 71 for double. If anyone is going to add a similar template and put a link to the score page of WTA Finals which will act as reliable and verifiable source for both the draw and for the score ( strong version), or eventually if only the score results page link is added (which will act as a weak verifiable page; weak version), i think i can withdraw the proposal for deletion. Or you can wait 7 days (or more days according to his backlog) when admin will show up to decide about keeping or deleting these pages. Mandraketennis (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copy this link http://wtafiles.wtatennis.com/pdf/draws/2021/808/MDS.pdf into your browser, don't just click on it. It works fine. It may be a wikipedia issue or the newest Nov 1 update of adobe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I am still not convinced this official draw is up to the standard of the normal tournaments' draws, but seeing the improvements (pdf file available as per fyunck) and especially the work on the wta finals page on wiki to improve this bad template by inserting the score directly into it, i've decided to acknowledge all this efforts and to retreat the deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BulgarianMilitary.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:11, 13 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Njoki[edit]

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

Non notable business woman who fails to satisfy WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO a before search (which you can do privately) clearly shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. I should also mention that they won a non notable award. Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Jones[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this poet and the mysterious other Robert L. Jones. Interesting set-up. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 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 13:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mukto Sramik Federation[edit]

Bangladesh Mukto Sramik Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited sources are a single line in one table of a thesis, and contact information in a directory listing. Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found brief mentions in lists and when identifying people (e.g. so-and-so of the BMSF was there). The only deeper piece is a primary source interview of Bhuiyan, with zero independent analysis.[19] He wears several hats, so it isn't even certain whether he's speaking on behalf of BMSF or one of the other organizations he leads. Fails WP:ORG in the absence of independent significant coverage. Redirection to ITUC-Asia Pacific, with which it is affiliated, is possible. Worldbruce (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacking significant coverage to meet WP:ORG, unless someone can find some Bengali sources. The Bengali version of this article has the same 2 sources. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 18 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetiana Mykytenko[edit]

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

promotional article on a non notable YouTuber that subtly promotes both the subject and her YouTube channel. She lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search shows user generated sources & self published sources all of which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peng's Coefficient[edit]

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

Looks like either a hoax or something someone made up one day. No sources since 2013 and nothing found. If this were newer I would have just tagged for CSD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:09, 13 November 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 M (Marvel Comics). Eddie891 Talk Work 20:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penance (X-Men)[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.", but the PROD was removed with no meaningful rationale by an editor who just got topic banned from deletion discussions (hence we cannot expect them to comment here). In the spirit of PRESERVE, I'd suggest a soft deletion by redirecting to List of Marvel Comics characters: P (or H, for Hollow?). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be unwise for you to press this further, it's starting to look more like sour grapes than genuine concern for wikipedia. Artw (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the best you can do, I doubt this article will fair much better. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into any of the Marvel comics letter based articles above and I'd say that there should be a link in those letter based articles where this is not being sent to so people looking in those articles can find the content. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the above and per WP:ATD. BD2412 T 22:20, 13 November 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 10:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Sasson[edit]

Isaac Sasson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If merge is the answer, it's just a bit unclear where to merge it. The organization who claimed responsibility for his kidnapping is the "Organization of the Oppressed on Earth" and on wikipedia, this redirects to Hezbollah. However, the Hezbollah page currently makes no mention of the "Organization of the Oppressed on Earth". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new page for Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and did the merge. I now have no objections to the deletion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would make more sense than a deletion. Mlb96 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one would ever search for "Isaac Sasson". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:50, 15 November 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 G7. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Utkarsh Raj[edit]

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

Non notable marketer. Most of the references included are sponsored content as mentioned in the pages themselves. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 17:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: can’t believe I didn’t see that at all, I just found out in the article only 2 or 3 wasn’t a sponsor post. I would look out for non-sponsor posts cause I believe they are a lot, cause I got my eyes on 5 and would take out time to make adjustments later tomorrow or next. --Afí-afeti (talk) 18:33, 13 November 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. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptability[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC. This article is not about one coherent concept, but rather is a grab bag of concepts that happen to use the words "acceptable" or "acceptability". The first paragraph is a generic dictionary definition. Then it jumps into a very technical definition from formal logic (which might or might not be separately notable). Then it jumps to a philosophical concept invented by a Hungarian mathematician. Then it talks about the applicability of the generic dictdef concept to negotiations, but by way of an extended technical quote from a computer science paper? Then it goes on to talk about some other concepts that have "acceptable" as part of their name.

This (4 year old) article originally had 4 incoming wikilinks. Two of them I removed because they were just referring to the generic, everyday dictionary definition (e.g. "It maintains flavour and acceptability of traditional soul foods"). The other two were referring to social acceptance, so I retargeted them accordingly. The article is now an orphan, and I can't see any contexts where the article would be legitimately appropriate to link to. (Per MOS:OVERLINK: "Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)" should not be linked). Colin M (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. This is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, which means that it is fundamentally difficult to write, but also very important to the encyclopedia to have. Acceptability is an important philosophical and societal concept, one that is inherent in subtopics like acceptable level of violence or acceptable risk. Note that this article was created because prior to its existence as an appropriate redirect target, acceptable was a disambiguation page drawing links that could not be fixed because there was no article in the encyclopedia addressing the concept. BD2412 T 04:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your last sentence: couldn't such links be fixed by unlinking them? As I said in my nomination statement, I can't think of any contexts where it would be appropriate to link to this page. Could you identify some? Colin M (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think that it should be linked in articles that are subtopics of the concept of Acceptability (e.g. Acceptable level of violence, Acceptable loss, Acceptable quality limit). It should probably be mentioned in Serenity Prayer, which has acceptance as one of its three elements. It should also be mentioned in Acceptance, which is only cogent in the context of acceptability. As an alternative, Acceptable loss and Acceptable quality limit could be merged into Acceptability, which would make for one better-rounded article rather than three stubs. BD2412 T 04:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you not think this would fall afoul of the provision I linked above from MOS:OVERLINK? What could we put at Acceptability that would enhance an average reader's understanding of an article like Acceptable level of violence? For that matter, should we also have a broad concept article for "level" that we could link to from the same article? Colin M (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would not consider this overlinking where relevant, as the link would contribute to the readers specific understanding of what acceptability is as a concept. The problem here is that it is big and so ubiquitous of a concept that it's like Air. People can't see that it is all around them all the time, and therefore fail to perceive its existence at all. That is why it is particularly important to have an article on it. "Level" as used here is merely a synonym for Quantity, which does have an article. BD2412 T 05:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The big difference between this and Air (i.e. Atmosphere of Earth) is that there are hundreds of reliable sources that give significant coverage of the latter topic. Can you furnish any that have significant coverage of the broad concept of acceptability? AFAICT, none of the sources currently cited in the article do this, in that they either deal with unrelated technical concepts which happen to have been given the name "acceptability" (as an analogy, sources on Interpretation (logic) would be irrelevant to an article about the broad meaning of the word "interpretation" - i.e. the act of interpreting or making sense of something), or with topics that have "acceptability" as part of their name. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • It isn't really accurate to refer to "unrelated technical concepts which happen to have been given the name", as if these were purely coincidental terms like the country, Turkey, and the bird, Turkey. Each of these concepts is a specific approach to the dichotomy between acceptability and unacceptability. The article could obviously be improved, but examinations of subtopic types of acceptability are inherently examinations of acceptability. For example, Acceptable loss is clearly a kind of acceptability. It would therefore be as odd to have article on the subtopics with no article on the supertopic as it would be to have articles on painting, sculpture, and lithography, but no article on The arts. BD2412 T 22:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. BD2412 T 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Acceptability (linguistics). As per WP:NOTDIC, notability of this general term is inherited from the various forms of the word acceptance, whereas the linguistics term is a specific concept. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are numerous specific concepts of greater primacy than the one in linguistics. BD2412 T 02:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which of these do you think the article should be redirected to? MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Basically, you're asking which subtopic should the supertopic be redirected to – it's like asking whether "Music" should be redirected to "Classical music" or "Pop music" or "World music". If we had no article at Music, we would need at least a set index of kinds of music, and barring that the logical redirect target would probabty be Music genre. If there is no article on acceptability, we would need to create some kind of list of kinds of acceptability. BD2412 T 03:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the other articles or disambig page do not currently exist, then the linguistic one would be the most appropriate at this point in time. However, I don't mind if the article is deleted instead, my suggestion was intended as an WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you not think that such a thing as Acceptability exists? Or that it is not a notable thing? BD2412 T 03:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • But classical music, pop music, and world music are all a kind of music. The topics you've described do not have that kind of taxonomic similarity. It would be like trying to make an article about "classicality" and bringing together topics like classical music, classical antiquity, classical economics, and classical mechanics. Sure, there's some vague similarity among these topics that led to them being named with the same adjective, but you're not going to find any RS that discusses them as a group or a natural class of concepts.
            I noticed you recently added a "Further reading" section that includes a book about Acceptability (linguistics). I don't think you understand the degree to which this is a specialized term of art. Chomsky could just as easily have chosen another name for the concept like "naturalness", or "appropriateness", or "consonance", or "frumiousness". Colin M (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't add a "Further reading" section. I would also note that a quick Google Scholar search returns over 1,400 hits for the "concept of acceptability", some of which are fruitful for their being a notable coherent concept by this name. BD2412 T 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I guess Lightburst added it. Context is important when evaluating those search results. e.g. you recently added a quote saying, as a blanket statement, that acceptability "is a subjective construct that varies between users and in time". But the paper you took that from isn't talking about acceptability as an abstract concept. In context, it's talking specifically about the acceptability of assistive technology for the elderly. Colin M (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Irrespective of the context in this case, it is still making a general statement about the concept of acceptability, one that is made to identical effect by dozens of other sources on dozens of other areas. We are a general purpose encyclopedia. We can inform readers that what is acceptable to one person, or in one time, or for one purpose, may not be acceptable to another person, in another time, or for another purpose, without finding a source solely dedicated to the general abstraction (just as we can note that a Speckled hummingbird has a pointed bill without needing to source it from a book titled The Pointiness of the Bill of the Speckled hummingbird). There are, as it happens, books and articles that more directly address the concept of acceptability as an abstraction, but they are written in convoluted philosophical language, and I'm trying to make this article more accessible. BD2412 T 05:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  There are, as it happens, books and articles that more directly address the concept of acceptability as an abstraction. Which ones? Vexations (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  I cited, for example, the Frederick Schmitt article, for example, but only a snippet because most of the discussion of the concept in the article is densely worded (e.g., "Now, it might be urged instead that the model characterizes, not our concept of acceptability but the property of acceptability. But it is unclear just what property this would be, if not the one fully characterized by our concept"). There were snippets in works on logic that were clearly promising, but not enough could be viewed to gather a complete quote. I have also just added a reference to Alex C. Michalos, "Acceptability and Logical Improbability", The Popper-Carnap Controversy (2012). BD2412 T 19:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  For any other significant uses, the standard practice would be to include a "for..." at the start of the redirect target. Nonetheless, my !vote is to redirect or delete (just re-iterating, I don't mean to !vote twice). MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely room to improve here. We have Perfection, essentially the opposing end of a spectrum with this, so they balance each other. Brings to mind that old myth of the tall Spanish ships approaching South American natives, where, it was told, the ships being outside of the native experience, they simply could not see them. I see this, but understand those who might not. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per your point, I did a quick search for literature contrasting acceptability and perfection, and found a few interesting things:
    • Revista de la Lengua Inglesa: Volume 7 (1976), p. 44: "It is necessary to differentiate acceptability and perfection (or near-perfection). Either of these can be the goal. In secondary schools perfection is nearly unattainable, so their goal is acceptability".
    • Thomas S. Greenspon, Moving Past Perfect: How Perfectionism May be Holding Back Your Kids (And You!) (2012), p. 22: "Perfectionism is a combination of the desire for perfection, the fear of imperfection, and the conviction that perfection is the route to personal acceptability".
    I expect that a more serious search would uncover discussions along more philosophical lines. BD2412 T 05:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added two sources in which acceptability is discussed by philosophers: JSTOR 25655305 and [23]. We can always WP:SPLIT off into Acceptability (philosophy), Acceptability (risk), etc, if/when this page gets unwieldy in size, but this top-level overview works fine for the moment. IMO, articles on concepts (one precedent I recall is Success (concept)) demonstrate the notability of the concept by showing that it's been discussed in multiple different contexts. Unless a sense is so technical and specific that it truly is distinct from the general concept, as Acceptability (linguistics) seems to be, there seems no reason a priori to think that "acceptability" as used in context A is fundamentally different from "acceptability" as used in context B. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Work has been done on the article since it was nominated. [24] Reading through the article as it is now, this seems to be a legitimate thing. Philosophers have talked about it and there is information in the article not found in related articles. Dream Focus 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete or draftify The original point of the nominator is still valid as of now, as is that of MrsSnoozyTurtle. The article lists many examples in which the term is applicable, but it doesn't follow from applicability that it's a broad abstract concept necessitating more than a dictionary definition to clarify its general meaning. The sources don't seem to to support this. Take, for instance this one, posted above: it discusses primarily logical premises, which inherently require acceptability, and so the term is discussed in that context. In the Machine Learning in Healthcare Informatics source, "acceptability" is simply one of several requirements for a practice in a critical field: again, no evidence that it's a special concept. Whether each specific instance of or concept involving acceptability is notable or not is another matter, but the general aspect of acceptability still amounts only to a definition. Avilich (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Avilich: What is the difference between acceptability and perfection (which was raised in a previous comment)? I am not asking with respect to the specific articles, but with respect to the concepts themselves. How do you know whether something is "acceptable" or "perfect"? How do you know what these concepts mean when applied to literally any random category of things? BD2412 T 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to guess that perfection means meeting all standards of a given set of standards. Acceptability means satisfactoriness, or being close enough, by some arbitrary standard, to perfectiom. But this all concerns definitions, I fail to see the point. Avilich (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose you work for a company, and the boss gives you $20 to get a flower arrangement for the conference table for an upcoming board meeting. When the flower shop owner brings out the potential options, you can see right away that some look fine and some look awful. If "acceptability" is only subject-specific, and not a broad concept, then you can not deem any of the arrangments to be "acceptable" or "unacceptable" absent some source describing how acceptability applies to flower arrangements for board meetings. If "acceptability" is indeed a broad concept, then you don't need a source on the subject to be able to say that a given flower arrangement is indeed "acceptable". In this context, if one of the flower arrangements is "perfect" for the purpose, then perfection is merely a degree of acceptability (ergo, perfection is a subtopic of acceptability, as are Necessity and sufficiency at the opposite end of what is acceptable). The fact that acceptability is most commonly defined by reference to specific cases of acceptability does not diminish its breadth. It is the opposite—this is a fundamental topic, difficult to write about precisely because of its universality. It is as important to have an article on this topic as it is to have one on Beauty or Ephemerality or Notability. BD2412 T 01:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At no moment did I say acceptability was subject-specific, only that the fundamental, non-specific aspect can be summed up in a definition; and that, as the nominator argued, this article is bound to be a simple definition followed by specific applications (more like mere examples), rather than an intricate analysis of what "acceptability" really means. Universality doesn't necessarily imply a large scope of philosophical or encyclopedic discussion: as a general principle, something can be defined by what it's not, and broad concepts tend to be lots of things, with no more than brief and superficial definitions that don't comprehensively describe what they aren't. That way, the more specific "perfection" can be the subject of much more discussion than the broader "acceptability", even acknowledging, for the sake of the argument, your contention that the former is a subtopic of the latter.

I also don't think "acceptability" can be compared with "beauty", "ephemerality", or "notability". Like "perfection", these are standards to be achieved, and so are more comparable to (say) "desirability" than "acceptability". It's easier to associate the latter term with mediocrity: a near-equivalent with regards to broadness and subjectivity, and likewise lacking in potential for a full article ("mediocre" is in fact a dab page containing a simple definition). Incidentally, wikilinking "mediocrity" would create the same problem as the one the nominator mentioned for wikilinking "acceptability"; given this, a dab page may well be the best solution for the issue here. Avilich (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental, non-specific aspects of beauty, perfection, and notability can also be summed up in the linked definitions. In fact, acceptability can also be a standard to be achieved when beginning from a given base position that will inherently be unacceptable (think of a chef with raw ingredients that would be unacceptable to serve as is). Whether mediocrity constitutes a subtopic of acceptability would depend on whether mediocrity is acceptable in a given circumstance. The function of acceptability does not change either way.
Disambiguation would be highly improper, however. We don't falsely disambiguate clearly unambiguous terms out of laziness. BD2412 T 00:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find the comparison with Notability apt, in that that page is also more or less a WP:DICTDEF followed by some tangential examples or concepts which are only lexically related. IMO, it should also be deleted. Apparently there was even consensus for deletion in a 2006 AfD, but it was later recreated for some reason. Colin M (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on broad topics are hard to write. It's easier to throw one's hands up and declare that it can't be done and point readers to another wiki or confound them with an unhelpful disambiguation page than do the work. That, however, is the opposite of building an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 07:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. I'm seeing plenty of coverage for acceptability in philosophy; in linguistics; and a few other fields; but pulling it together without sources covering it at the broadest level is a serious problem, falling foul of WP:NOR. If no primary topic can be established, this should be turned into a DAB; if not, this should confine itself to the primary topic, and the other material should be spun off. No opinion as to which the primary topic should be: that requires more analysis than I'm able to do in an AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything is split out, then the philosophical concept remains the clear primary topic of the term, both by longevity and by historic importance. The linguisitic term is a relatively recent coinage and is obscure. All other uses are variations of the philosophical concept, and should at least be mentioned in the primary topic article. BD2412 T 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A Google search for "Acceptability" returns over 80,000,000 hits; a Google Books search returns over 3,000,000 results. Obviously it is impossible in the span of time allotted for an AfD (even a relisted one) for these hits to be reviewed to any more than a superficial degree, but I have found Dov M. Gabbay, Odinaldo T. Rodrigues, Alessandra Russo, Revision, Acceptability and Context: Theoretical and Algorithmic Aspects (Springer, 2010), which seems very promising as a source. BD2412 T 20:40, 23 November 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. This does not prevent redirecting/merging. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Semmel[edit]

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

I'm afraid the subject doesn't pass the notability guidelines. He is a director at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and an academic, but the citation rates are low, there's no significant coverage, mostly only mentions. As an alternative to deletion I suggest redirect to Applied Physics Laboratory. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete does not pass WP:NPROF, no indication of notability in the article. --hroest 15:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF. Among the many references, most do not contribute towards GNG. Among the few that might, The Daily Record piece is not convincing to me; it looks more like a copy of a press release than an independently researched story. The Howard Community College link does not have a lot of depth about Semmel. And writing about their own alumni makes the UMBC piece's independence dubious. So the case for having multiple in-depth reliable independent works about the subject is weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is something seriously wrong with WP's notability for academics when being director of the John Hopkins APL (a hugely world-famous research centre employing over 7000 people) is considered less an indication of notability than landing the editorship of a specialist journal that hardly anyone reads, or a named chair in a university that was short of cash one year and managed to persuade a millionaire to endow something. It is much, much easier to become a named-chair professor than to become a director of a research institute of even 1/10th the prestige of this one. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about this, and should apologise for my rather drastic rant above. Here is the more considered opinion: although Semmel appears to fail WP:NPROF, our guiding principle in all matters of notability should be: will our readers have a legitimate interest in the subject in years to come: will they have a legitimate expectation that we should be providing this information in, say, 50 years? The John Hopkins APL is so vastly influential that it is highly likely WP readers in 50 years will be looking at its article and interested in its history. They will undoubtedly ask the question "who were the men and women who guided this organisation as it supervised the human race's first proper look at Pluto (etc.)?". They will want to know the basic biographical details of APL's directors as a matter of encyclopaedic interest. We could put the biographies of the directors in the APL's own article, but in another 50 years they might have reached twelve or more directors, which would unbalance the article. Some (all) of those individuals will have had much wider careers. So it makes sense to give them individual articles. I do think this article should be kept. Elemimele (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems hard to believe that someone in this position wouldn't meet WP:NBIO, but I agree that the current sources are not sufficient. Unfortunately my searches only turned up passing mentions in interviews and Foreword sections of books. Hopefully someone can find more substantial coverage before this AfD is closed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with previous comments regarding this article. I consider that the article complies with WP:ANYBIO policy under the "additional criteria", because it satisfies points 1 and possibly 2. My understanding is that Mr. Semmel is the effective recipient of a well-known and significant honor when he was appointed to lead said institution and therefore has the notability required by the policy. His scientific research might also qualify him on the second point. Louie (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm not seeing evidence of this person meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Being director of this non-profit is an argument that I could be persuaded about, but I do not see enough evidence of its influence at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If WP:NPROF accepts named chairs, editors of major journals, high-level appointed positions in academic societies, members of the Royal Society, and so on as notable, this person is failing it on a technicality, not according to the spirit of the rule. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 23 November 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 WeatherStar#IntelliStar. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliStar[edit]

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

I believe that this article currently fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE; the vast majority of the article appears to be the equivalent of an enormous software log. Similarly, the sources present (and what I could find using a google search), do not indicate WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent RS. I would recommend that this article be redirected to Weatherstar, which is where IntelliStar's successor, IntelliStar 2, currently redirects to. (And, on a side note, Intellistar (the version without camel case), currently is a redirect to Weatherstar). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to WeatherStar#IntelliStar as was the situation prior to yesterday's rewrite. - Sumanuil (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious !vote for redirect per my redirecting comment plus the overt WP:CHANGELOG. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, removing unsourced material. Reliable notable sources are noted in the original AfD discussion. MikeM2011 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the WP:THREE "reliable sources" noted in the original AfD discussion actually do anything to establish the notability of IntelliStar separately from WeatherStar:
      1. The New Inquiry isn't the greatest website in the first place (its self-description reads as if it's a fringe left publication; it claims editorial control but it also notes that it's really churned through editors over its short 4-year lifespan). But, more relevant here: even if the site were to be reliable (for sake of argument) the particular source doesn't actually establish the notability of IntelliStar as being separate from Weatherstar. In fact, the three of the four mentions of IntelliStar in the page are of the form "WeatherStar/IntelliStar". The article dedicates a fraction of a sentence to characterize IntelliStar as the "higher-tech offspring" of WeatherStar, but this alone cannot be considered to be WP:SIGCOV of IntelliStar that would help to justify the topic being separate from WeatherStar.
      2. Regarding the source presented at USENIX 2003, the source is plainly not WP:INDEPENDENT of The Weather Channel; the paper is a conference proceeding that was produced by an employee of The Weather Channel. While it might be useful for describing what IntelliStar is, this sort of thing does not contribute to notability in any meaningful way.
      3. Regarding the [books.google.com/books?id=xgMQAQAAMAAJ book], while I can't view it myself, even the keep !voter who noted the source in the first AfD was unsure if it contributed towards WP:SIGCOV owing to how brief they described the mention as.
    Taken together, I don't believe that the three sources that were mentioned in the previous AfD are enough to establish notability—and I especially think that they don't establish notability of IntelliStar as being separate from WeatherStar, the proposed redirect target. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to WeatherStar#Intellistar. Article up for deletion has plenty of fascinating material, all of which looks to be original research. Take away that, and nothing much remains that is reliably sourced.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WeatherStar#Intellistar. No evidence that there are enough reliable independent sources to meet GNG, and the ones mentioned in the previous AfD are insufficient per Mikehawk10. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 22 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiu Popa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are very poor. Not really about him. No secondary referencing. scope_creepTalk 20:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep I argued that a portion of sources are highly-reliable. These reputable citations included The Star, and CBC News. There had also been numerous Youtube videos published by reliable news agencies such as CTV News, hence they inherited their level of reliability. What do you mean "Not really about him." Wingwatchers (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I believe Popa is notable per [25]. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is determined by independent reliable sources, right? Wingwatchers (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first reference is him talking about a security breach. The 2nd ref is a profile he wrote. He is not an academic. The third ref is a profile in the document. 4th ref is him talking about a breach of children school. 5th is a small note. There is a not a single secondary source amongst the lot of them. There is one review of one of his books, but that is not sufficient on this own. It is WP:BLP. It needs real secondary source to stay in mainspace. Don't post up raw search URL like, they are not permissable at Afd. You can find information on almost every person on the planet by doing a search like that. It is the quality of the information that counts. It is not valid. scope_creepTalk 20:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the Youtube videos, and why are these refs credible for unreliability? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: What is the link to Youtube videos? I see there is a guy who is a comedian with the same name. scope_creepTalk 12:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, ref 9, 10 and 11. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the Youtube references are primary and they have less than 9000 views, for the top viewed vlog. The rest are much less than that. Comparing the view countm on a like for like basis on that alone. For example, an influencer or somebody would looking to prove notabiliy by that channel alone, it would be need to be 250k views at least, on several vlogs. The reality is that there is no secondary sources for this individual. None. He is dude doing his job and good on him. scope_creepTalk 14:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: it doesn't matter that the videos had little to no views. As long as it is published by a reliable news agency, it is reliable, and therefore it can justify the notability. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRIMARY: the videos along with some other refs are from reliable third party sites. They are not primary sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Reliable third party sites is meaningless. Videos and vlogs need to have at least 250k views to support an article if there is no secondary sources, as there is here. Nobody watches the vlogs. The children's school was his daughters. scope_creepTalk 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that this article has previously been deleted and is relatively new, relisting to see if more than 2 participants can be found to discuss and a consensus found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not pass WP:BASIC. The sources that come from reliable third-parties are all interviews of the subject about something within their field of expertise. These sources are not secondary, not independent of the subject, and do not include significant coverage of him. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with SailingInABathTub. Has taught classes at University of Toronto, and after looking at his citation metrics, also fails WP:NACADEMIC. Pilaz (talk) 22:41, 20 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian intellectuals[edit]

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

What is the criterion for classifying intellectuals? Pinkfloyd amir (talk) 17:22, 13 November 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. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logos University College[edit]

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

I cannot find enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Search terms: "Logos University College" and "Kolegji Universitar Logos". MarioGom (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Ioannis Palaiokrassas was head of the board, and there are some google news results in greek, but I can't read greek. There's no foreign-language versions of the Wikipedia page listed, so it's not like there is depth in a Greek language article. tedder (talk) 18:39, 26 :October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Logos University College is listed in ASCAL's list of private universities at #33. It is a government accredited college link. Kj1595 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The guidelines are pretty clear that most (not all) accredited colleges are notable. In this case the sources are extremely lacking. So it clearly isn't. The fact that there isn't even a Greek article just confirms it. As far as the connection to Ioannis Palaiokrassas goes, it's probably worth mentioning in their article, but I don't think it's enough to justify an article about the college. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found that the university is affiliated with the Albanian Orthodox Church which has a dedicated page about the university. Logos is also listed on the UniRank website which has one of the largest databases of universities from around the world. The Albanian Parliament has published a memorandum of cooperation it reached with the university in October 2018. Link is here. Kj1595 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately none of that makes it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I was unable to find enough content to pass WP:SIGCOV and allow a full article about this school to be written (WP:WHYN). I used an online translator to look through the search results Tedder shared, and this site was the only one that mentioned the school. (The article has one sentence detailing its founders, start date and that it's a nonprofit.) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is advice, but WP:N is the guideline, so unless there is proof of reliable souring for this school (online or offline), this fails WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:37, 23 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technology fusion[edit]

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

Buzzword salad. Some of the sources seem to be talking about a specific methodology in use in Japan in the 1970s and 1980s, others are just using the two words next to each other with their dictionary definitions. As the primary topic for this title is probably fusion power I don't think any redirect will work. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:42, 13 November 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. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Przegalińska[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF, maybe WP:TOOSOON. Is an associate prof, PhD in 2014, some recent books. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search brings easily another one. She is also widely covered in different media, a frequent TV invited guest, etc. Pundit|utter 18:37, 13 November 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 13:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Boyd (writer)[edit]

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

failing wp:notability, both citations are for a single work produced. no other information from source search deity 09:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:04, 13 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary affective systems[edit]

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

Is the brainchild of Jaak Panksepp, with minimal independant coverage. Could be merged with Jaak Panksepp if need be. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Articles in peer-reviewed journals are not reliable-independent sources to establish notability; as they are merely self-published articles with minimal oversight and the subject itself is the author in the byline, posing a conflict of interest. As a result, there are no reliable sources cited in the article that establishes it needs its own page in the articlespace. Furthermore, the concept of affectivity put forth by the subject is a stream of common knowledge in the discipline and not considered a scientific breakthrough or theory with any originality. Does not meet WP:GNG or any criteria. Multi7001 (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources: WP:MEDINDY -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:11, 13 November 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.

Christine Dacera[edit]

The result of this discussion was redirect to Death of Christine Dacera. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mandraketennis (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 WTA Finals[edit]

2021 WTA Finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unverifiable source for the draw. No draw link offered at all, against WP:VERIFY rule Mandraketennis (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty284651: You provide no link whatsoever about the draw. The only link resembling it, it's this https://www.wtatennis.com/news/2346777/wta-finals-2021-schedule-draws-prize-money-and-everything-you-need-to-know, linked in the notes to the article, which as anyone can easily check (did you??) instead of delivering about its title "... the draw..." it enlists the two groups of players. That is, it's a failing link after a simple verification. Mandraketennis (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Spiderone: Being a big event (i doubt it's bigger than any other Grand Slam ever played) and getting a load of coverage doesn't assure that: 1) It's covered adeguately and 2)It doesn't need any reliable source, because "everybody knows" or some lingo like that. Wikipedia relies on trusting and reliable sources. Not providing the and writing the article nonetheless, well, it's a straight way to the deletion, as per policies and guidelines offered on Verifiability page of Wikipedia.Mandraketennis (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandraketennis What is wrong with you? This is a very reliable tennis article with adequate sources and one of the biggest tennis events. You can't just go on promote for deletion as you please, because you blindly believe it does not fit the policies and guidelines, when it clearly does. You are just plain wrong. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prominent article which is not so prominent. It's the single page, not the main page article. Deleting it would not compromise the event, the WTA finals, coverage on Wikipedia. But leaving this and the double with link NOT WORKING would be a big detriment to the reliability of Wikipedia. Mandraketennis (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iffy: Having a lot of coverage doesn't imply some part of the article could go without any, because it's somewhat or mostly covered. I must have to point out that even if it has a good number of references in the note, it has only one link to the official website in the external link section, that makes up for, at its best, a low quality article. Having said that, I can concur with you that maybe this was not the "right" article to put up for deletion, maybe for some other tag, and that its subarticles should be up instead. Thanks for the advice.Mandraketennis (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note - this person has added this label to several prominant tennis article out of anger and he has been reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try again, it's 4 articles, not several, 2 on WTA Finals and 2 on Upper Austria tournaments. Now, Upper Austria, a WTA 250 event, is a prominent tournament since when? I'm stating facts and arguments and you have been going full on with personal attacks. This has been a displeasing conversation since start. On one thing i agree: your misbehaviour, your ability to make everything personal and threat with ban newcomers, not to argue about the issue and dismiss other editors contributions, reverting them and so on, has been noticed and reported. Regards.Mandraketennis (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try again. Every person commenting thinks every single article you put up for deletion is craziness. This should never have happened. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: it's literally under progress. – 333-blue at 02:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: I've just added a direct link to the article for the Singles Draw from the official WTA site (I would do so for the Doubles Draw as well, but do not know how to do so, as it's located at the same page, but is accessed by subsequently clicking upon 'Doubles' once there], so the argument that there isn't any 'official' link to said Draw is now moot. More importantly, though, the idea that this article should be removed is utterly absurd; it is at the very least recognized by most who seriously follow the sport as being the fifth most important tournament of the year, only behind the four Majors... and is recognized by some as possessing equal importance to those four Grand Slam events. Anyone who attempts to proclaim that this event is not worthy of having its own article here upon this site is oblivious to the strong degree of importance that this tournament holds within the women's tennis world. – AtypicalMale — Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This is just a totally farcical deletion request. MaineCrab (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well, if I there is "no valid link to the Draw", then you should try to find and add that link, not demand the whole page to be deleted.LuxGSM (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn The links for both the draws were added, so i retreat my deletion request.Mandraketennis (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles–Vikings Rivalry[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. No rivalry exists between these two teams. This is evidenced by a very few reliable sources. A Google search of Eagles Vikings rivalry shows very few relevant hits. The article clings to a single ESPN blog that makes little connection to the teams as “rivals” outside of its title and instead talks about how Eagles fans are rude and disrespectful to Vikings players and fans (though this can be said about Eagles fans vs. any other fan base as Philadelphia has been notorious for bad fan behavior [27] [28]). The remaining hits on the Google search are a few local blogs from both regions that artificially use the term “rivalry” to manufacture hype. Frank AnchorTalk 14:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 14:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 14:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 14:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 14:48, 13 November 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 November 13. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, here's what my search found: this from Section215.com (looks like a blog); this from The Daily Sentinel (via Newspapers.com); and this from ESPN. Doesn't look like enough to meet GNG IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC) (slightly modified comment at 18:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment, here's what my search found: [29]. [30]/ [31] [32]. The links represent both additional news websites and team websites from both teams acknowledging a rivalry. They have played 3 times in the playoffs in the last 15 years which makes it one of the most played playoff series in the 2000's. I will say one more thing because I am the creator of these new vikings rivalry pages. I really tried to only add pages that have value and staying power to the Wikipedia platform. It would be tempting to add the 49ers (6 playoff games), Rams (7 playoff games), and Seahawks as historical Vikings rivalry pages given many important playoff games too but those wouldn't have the appeal to sustain success (they are all dead). I think the Eagles page has more of a chance to succeed. One other thing: we went through this exercise on Vikings-Saints and here are some interesting stats since the creation of that page (580 views for Saints-Vikings per Wikipedia PageViews; Bears/Packers, Cowboys/Eagles, and Seahawks/49ers have 39/19/3 views respectively in the same time period). I think I have a sense that the Eagles-Vikings page is worth keeping in a way that Rams-Vikings wouldn't work but that the Vikings-Saints page has been very successful so far. This all being said, the current Eagles-Vikings page needs work on sources and content so its a work in progress. Jackmar1 (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needing work on its sources is one thing, but as User:BeanieFan11 and I have demonstrated, the reliable sources simply aren’t there for this one. Page views don’t establish notability, and even if they did, the topic of this AFD is on the Eagles-Vikings page, so your comments on the Saints-Vikings page are irrelevant. Lastly, while having 3 playoff meetings since 2000 is impressive, it is original research in establishing a rivalry. Frank AnchorTalk 23:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fair point. I think we wait to get a couple other people to weigh in before we delete it.Jackmar1 (talk) 24:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that’s the point of the AFD process, to allow several days for users to make arguments for or against deletion. Frank AnchorTalk 01:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no more antipathy in this matchup than in any of the others these two teams have, which to me would be a prerequisite of considering this a rivalry. The only game I can even think of between these two teams is the NFC Championship from 2017-18. In general, Vikings fans don't look forward to games against the Eagles, nor do Eagles fans look out for their games against the Vikings. – PeeJay 02:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the coverage identified here is not of the WP:GNG variety, i.e., it consists of blogs that lack sufficient reliability or it comes from the clubs' own web sites and thus lacks independence. The article cited by BeanieFan from a Colorado newspaper uses the word "rivalry" in its title but the body of the article makes no reference to, let alone discussion of, rivals or rivalry. The one piece of qualifying SIGCOV brought forward is the ESPN piece identified by BeanieFan -- that one suggests there may be a "real" rivalry developing but GNG requires multiple sources. If more sources are found with similar depth from independent and reliable sources, I could be persuaded to change to a 'keep' vote. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frank Anchor's nomination. Also, BeanieFan11 has demonstrated competent searches for sources on other topics, so I defer to their judgement also in this situation, and back it up 100%. Spf121188 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've provided all I can on this. I provided an ESPN article, links from both teams, zonecoverage.com (https://zonecoverage.com/2020/minnesota-vikings-news/new-orleans-seattle-and-the-minnesota-vikings-biggest-non-divisional-rivals/) lists the Eagles as a top five Vikings rival. Philadelphia Inquirer describes the rivalry (https://www.inquirer.com/eagles/philadelphia-eagles-vikings-us-bank-stadium-super-bowl-lii-jason-kelce-20191010.html). Clearly although its not at the level of the intense divisional rivalries, there is something here. Ultimately though, if I'm the only person defending keeping it, than it probably doesn't belong on the basis of consensus. Jackmar1 (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although none are currently in the article now, there are a number of reliable sources at Newspapers.com establishing notability of this topic. I no longer have Newspapers.com access, or I would add a few to the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: Most of the sources found with "Eagles-Vikings rivalry" (or similar) are related to high school and college games. This is the only newspapers.com article I found calling the Philadelphia Eagles and Minnesota Vikings rivals. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Gonzo fan2007. There does appear to be a rivalry, as evidenced in several sources, though not as strong as, say, the Eagles-Giants rivalry. I'm going to lean toward keeping this one. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GonzoFan2007 did not list any reliable sources, only claiming that there were several sources on a newspapers.com despite not having access to it. Please see BeanieFan11’s response which shows only one relevant hit (not enough to satisfy WP:GNG) Frank Anchor 23:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BeanieFan. A very small number of sources, fewer of which seem reliable. There needs to be more than a simple record of teams playing each other, but of an ongoing fan culture between the two which is independently reported. I don't bring it up to compare the articles, but compare the nature of the sources in something like Manchester derby, where dedicated coverage is given by sources to discussing the rivalry itself. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:15, 19 November 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) Mandraketennis (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Singles[edit]

2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unverified main and qualification draw. Related links do not open at all. Mandraketennis (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: Maybe i need to write some indepth analysis here, even if i thought the issue was pretty much simple and easy to understand. I put up that page because it's the single draw of this year tournament, that is essentially a Draw page filled with results. Even the seeds and the retirements and qualifiers are draw- related. There is no other link to which one could refer to verify the informations provided than the draw from a reliable source. In this case there is any reliable source; there is any source at all. So since this page is all about the draw, without providing the only information needed to verify it, the draw itself, it has to be removed. I already check for possible sources of the draw, but found, at best, only the single's Qualification Draw and on twitter. Also it's a link which automatically download the file, so there's not any "visible" draw to link to, in case anyone would have thought about uploading it. To me, but also to the policy you can see on the official verifiable page of Wikipedia, "any content which cannot have a reliable source may be removed". Also " the creator is responsible to add that content. I already linked this page to the creator's talk page, as per guidelines and policies write about in case of proposing an article for deletion. Regards. Mandraketennis (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge/Speedy Keep As the creator of this article, there is only one form of reference for a tennis draw, and that is the draw taken from the WTA. If you could not open the PDF files, I am very sorry, although that is not a reason to delete the article. All the information is clearly present on the sources cited. Do not delete this page. And if you are going to delete this page for not having another source for the draw outside of the PDF files provided by the WTA, you are going to have to take that approach for all tennis draw pages. Alexxbrookss (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge Keep - this editor has added this tag to several tennis articles out of spite and has been reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Notable article. This seems simply disruptive behavior from the proposer after not getting their way in a recent discussion.--Wolbo (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@wolbo @fyunckx you are clearly making some personal attack here, talking about me and not the issue. You two are ignoring that the link in these case and the other 3 cases are not working at all. This is a blatantly contradiction of Wikipedia's stateline "new content needs verifiable source". Your misbehaviour is being noticed and reported.Mandraketennis (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the links DO work. The links are direct PDF download links from the WTA website, and the PDFs are complete draws. You are simply being obtuse by stating that the links are dead and the content isn't referenced. It is. If you cannot open a PDF file, that is not my fault.Alexxbrookss (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tell Iffy that PDF link works, because even this editor talks about BROKEN reference in the comments above "Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #1, The 'broken' references come from [1], which probably should have been cited in the first place instead of the PDF. The fact that some references in the article are broken is not by itself a basis for deleting an entire article. Iffy★Chat -- 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)". So nice try to reverse the table but no, the links ARE BROKEN. So it goes consensus, for once in the right way.Mandraketennis (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That changes nothing, the links are working, and the draw is available as a PDF. You shouldn't request a deletion of an article because you cannot open a document, regardless of your personal feelings.
Goebbels said that repeating a lie a million times it becomes true, you're on a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandraketennis (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge keep' this article falls in line with the notability guidelines and it being promoted for deletion is an erroneous behavior. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. Proposer needs to read WP:BEFORE. Sod25 (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@sod25 I, in fact, did read the whole page "article for deletion" and related pages before submitting this and the other 3 articles. At point 2 it's enlisted the reasons to put an article up for deletion, and i quote, "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)."

So, while ALL the USERS above have read only the first mentioned point Notability, i have read all the 4 points, and found that 2 of them, verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article. The general consensus made-up above is apparently built on a false premise, that article deletion should be waged ONLY against notability, while the WP:BEFORE page clearly states that it is one of four. I hope every future comment will adhere to what is written in the guidelines of Wikipedia and not to some sort of agreement among editors, if not to general laziness to stop at the first mentioned reason mentioned for deleting articles. I really hope that is not the case, because i cannot imagine what the "internal" consensum could have reduced the other main guidelines, instead of applying what is clearly stated in there. I would also like to point out that user @spiderone made a suspicious number of cross-posting, 4 in a minute, which could be considered canvassing, and the two user above @wolbo and @fyunck could be considered as vote-stacking, since they already undid some of my editings and were against a recent proposal of mine, fyunck in particular was duly present in that previous discussion raising constantly arguments against it and mischaracterizing the proposal, so for sure they were not "a priori" in favor of anything coming from me.Mandraketennis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before making strong accusations like canvassing and vote-stacking against other editors, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the processes first, so you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about? And perhaps you should've nominated just one article for deletion first, to see if your concerns about these articles as a new user were valid?
To humor you, you say "verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article". Be specific. The only sources for this article are wtatennis.com and ladieslinz.at - the official women's tennis body website and the official tournament website. Which of these isn't reliable in your opinion? And precisely what in this article isn't verifiable? Sod25 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sod25 I uploaded two very different tournaments' pages for deletion instead of a single one because they are so different, one is a common tournament, the other has a round robin, so since i didn't know if the procedure was different i uploaded both. I enlarged them to the doubles because it seemed disparaging not to take notice also of those. And i did not pick them out of the top of my hat, but because the links to the draws were missing in all 4 cases. That what's happened in this page since you asked me about, presumably because you didn't understand what we're talking in here, but anyhow that lacking of knowledge didn't prevent you from writing 2 comments before asking the issue at hand. Also i didn't make accusation, i used the conditional time, suggesting that someone, better if an admin, should check with those suspicious activities.
Bold of you to assume I'm the one who's confused here. Your tone is accusatory as the "suggest[ions]" are wrongly premised on the "activities" being "suspicious", and not just perfectly normal parts of the WP:Afd process. Sod25 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't abide by what you think my tone is. Remember to stay on topic, not making it personal or i am going to ignore you and /or treat your comments as hostile. I followed the guidelines on canvassing and vote-stacking. I am a newcomer so i don't know what the common practice is here. I put my legitimate and states in guidelines suspicion up for an admin to eventually take a look. I couldn't care the less about what you think of me. Try to stay on argument and make less allegations based on what you think it's my "tone".
Try to stay on argument and make less [sic] allegations - advice to live by. Sod25 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "game the system" approach you are trying to make in here, hiding it under a mask of humour. I could be a newcomer in here, but i am a multi-year expert of tennis, so please be my guest on this topic. The reliable sources allowed by Wikipedia guidelines are not the two you mentioned. Those are the usually used by editors for practice, efficiency or whatever reason, that's what you have done. If you take the time to check with the Wikipedia guidelines you should know that social media sources could be used as well, i.e. they are deemed reliable under specific circumstance. They don't get used by editors since they prefer to set the pdf standard for the draws, and that's their taste. I prefer to have a draw from official source, even in jpg format than nothing at all, in fact i uploaded recently one of that, which was reverted, then unreverted, then reverted again, until pdf file was available and i was fine with that standard, i just don't like the "pdf file or nothing" common practice among tennis editors, but that's my taste. That said, there are unreliable sources, which are the journalistic ones. You could think that some blog or newspaper or "stakeholder" of tennis world would be as fine as the official websites, but they are not, without going that back in time, there is someone who wrote WTA finals are "indoor", that Mischa Zverev is playing the ATP finals, and the list goes on and on. So in my multi-year experience i tend not to rely on those unless i can independently verify with other, preferably multiple, sources. And i usually do this verification. So, you see there are official and reliable sources, official and (wrongly deemed) not reliable sources, unofficial and reliable, and unofficial and unreliable sources you seemed to be unaware of and that's disturbing to see in someone who edits tennis section: you don't know your sources?? If you want the links of sources divided by the categories above, i can easily provide them digging into my tennis archive, but that's over the scope of this page. As it goes for verifiability process, if the links provided for the draws can't be opened you can't verify a whiff, i don't need to use my tennis expertise on that. It's pretty much standard thinking.Mandraketennis (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of words, but you completely failed to answer the questions. This is not a general discussion about tennis article sourcing on Wikipedia, but about this specific article. So, again, which of wtatennis.com and ladieslinz.at, the two websites referenced in the article you've nominated for deletion here on the basis of "verifiability and reliable sources", are unreliable? And what information in the article is not verifiable? Keep in mind that "not verifiable" means can't be verified (no sources exist to verify it), not that the info is currently missing a citation. This is outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion (which you say you've read): If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources [...] If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Not being able to open pdfs on your device is not a valid basis for deletion of the article itself. Sod25 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i'm treating your comment as plain hostile now. IT's the new content added on wiki which should be verifiable with a legitimate source, not a source wchich should be verifiable ( against what? A wikipedia page, lol). If you have a source which is legitimate but has no link related to verify what is upped on wikipages it doesn't matter at all. You could have posted a link to NBA as draw for what your rationale goes, which is a reliable source. Yes NBA is reliable but has no draw link to upper austria tournament, as WTA hasn't. The fact that WTA, NBA, NFL, and whatever are reliable sources has no relation with the specific case. There's no link broken in my pc, there's no link at all to check it on. And if you can't check the info which makes 80% of the article, over the only link presented, either you upload some different link with this info, or cancel the whole article. This is my view on the topic, otherwise i would have used the "citation needed" or other tags. I repeat, since the whole article is a giant draw filled with scores, without draw, without the matches in their proper order, you can't have the page. That's my view, and why i proposed that article for deletion. You are free to think otherwise and argue about that, but not to say things that are false. "The link is broken" is false. The link was never working. You don't know that probably, sorry, for sure because you're not interested in tennis matches and tournaments, otherwise you would have checked about this link at the same time as i did. I waited and waited for a link to be uploaded on the official website and nothing appeared on WTA or Linz. That's what happened. So now you already know the state of art of this article and are now being educated about its history, maybe i can expect some thoughtful comment for a change, or probably you shouldn 't have posted any of that before reaching this current point. Lol, it's everywhere full of people making ignorant comments first and asking questions later. If you don't understand my answer even this time, please ask someone else for help.Mandraketennis (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[T]here's no link at all to check it on. ? There are 3 links at the bottom of the article, in the "External links" section. These links were there before you nominated this article for deletion [34], i.e. they haven't been added in the meantime. All three links work. The two links to PDFs are published by the WTA and are hosted on the WTA website (click "Download draw" here). You admit the WTA is a reliable source. So what is your issue? If the links didn't work for you (i.e. they were "broken"), that isn't valid cause for deletion of the article as I already explained and you would have known if you had read WP:BEFORE. Sod25 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have went ahead and added a couple of more sources on the tournament result just in case the sources provided originally were lacking. If I am understanding this situation correctly, the article was nominated for deletion not for lack of sources or notability but because the draw links don't open?? (they seem to open just fine for me by the way, they just download as a PDF file) I am not sure how this is even a valid criteria for deletion, but nonetheless, there are quite a few sources out there that can additionally be added if anyone feels like the ones present don't do enough to assert notability. But that is just my view on things. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Links to wtatennis website are now working, still no pdf, but to me it's a detail. I am going to retreat this article. Mission accomplished.Mandraketennis (talk) 17:02, 14 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andito Tayo Para sa Isa't Isa[edit]

Andito Tayo Para sa Isa't Isa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have moved this page to draft as it was without any reliable sources but it was published again by the editor without any improvements, bypassing Afc review process. The article seems to fail WP:NSONG. signed, Iflaq (talk) 14:41, 13 November 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 12:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Open Palmtop Integrated Environment[edit]

Open Palmtop Integrated Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article is a user interface for palmtop computers which the article itself admits had little usage and which has been discontinued totally for eleven years. Sources linked in the article do not establish any kind of notability regarding this system. Foonblace (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GNG. One gnews hit, a plain google search mainly reveals definition listings. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 17 November 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 12:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Health[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Possibly G11, but there are some sources reporting funding of this year-old start-up. Insufficient in-depth coverage. MB 02:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 13 November 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. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Seaton-Clark[edit]

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

The subject fails notability guidelines. Not a single ref presented talks about him in detail - just mentions, none were found during WP:BEFORE as well. No major roles. Less Unless (talk) 13:50, 13 November 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 List of ambassadors of the United States to the Central African Republic. Sandstein 12:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin L. Manfull[edit]

Melvin L. Manfull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Are ambassadors inherently notable? Because on the GNG this subject does not pass: there is no coverage of him at all outside of State Department (primary) sources. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Mall[edit]

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

The place is not notable. The article is short and written like an advertisement. References are not reliable. Katakana546 (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the time I posted my vote, I was unaware WP:MALL was a failed guideline, so I struck it. I still stand by my keep vote. Frank AnchorTalk 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Frank above, meets WP:GNG with the links to the references provided. I agree that it should be updated with some of these references and information. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I'm not into the idea that shopping malls are always notable, I believe that the now-updated article has enough coverage and substance. SL93 (talk) 03:20, 15 November 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 12:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Kemelet[edit]

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

This nomination includes:

Two one-line, long-time unsourced stubs about two Algerian desert towns. I can't find any mention of them in reliable sources, nor any other kind of coverage. Additionally, neither of them can be found on Google Maps or on the GEOnet Names Server. Lennart97 (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now also including:

Per comments by FOARP below. Lennart97 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 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 12:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjay Das Kathiababa[edit]

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

Biography of a Hindu saint entirely lacking in reliable independent sources. I checked the Hindi and Bengali wiki pages to see if there were usable sources there, but they use the en.wiki article as a source. There may be sources in languages I can’t search, but unless someone can find them, we can’t keep this in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 10:21, 13 November 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. The "lack of sources" argument remains unrebutted and is compelling. Sandstein 12:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Colonial Society Americans of Royal Descent[edit]

Sovereign Colonial Society Americans of Royal Descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this organisation exists, I have not found in depth coverage of it in multiple reliable independent sources, so don’t believe it to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Just because we have an article on A does not mean we have to have an article on B. If B does not pass our guidelines/policies then it won't be kept regardless of whether A passes them or doesn't pass them. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn’t have in depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, then by definition it is not “equally significant in notability to others”. Mccapra (talk) 19:53, 19 November 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 12:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srihari Pudi[edit]

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

BLP of the chief public relations officer if the chief minister of an Indian state, sourced to routine announcements of his appointment and PR about a book launch. Mccapra (talk) 09:54, 13 November 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. North America1000 09:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emunah La-Paz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emunah La-Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe we should interpret the lengthy comment above by Vhubbard as Keep. I have corrected its placement here and formatted it with precision as it was left. I have not otherwise edited it save for the unsigned template. I make no comment upon it. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment has now been redacted by an admin as disruptive. See the history tab FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing entitles you to have an artice on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia Thank you for your comment. Was it your intention also to leave an opinion to keep or delete the article? There is obviously no requirement for you to do so, but your opinion will be welcome. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON, and should they one day produce notable work, obviously we can revisit this. Edwardx (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NAUTHOR fail. Seems to have no significant following. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Comment by Vhubbard makes no arguments about notability, but does include a set of threats and claims to ownership, neither of which are really permissable. Furius (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ignoring issues regardng WP:COI, not enough independant coverage to merit a pass of WP:NAUTHOR, seems more like WP:PROMO. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should there be the provision of good quality references sufficient to verify notability I will have no hesitation in reversing my opinion. WP:HEY applies. Find and enter that information in the article and make sure that is noted in this discussion, please.
    This discussion has been characterised as being in some manner racist on my own talk page and elsewhere by Vhubbard, the creating editor and the subject of the article. I have no interest in positive nor in negative discrimination for or against any race, nor any other group. My sole interest is in the quality of articles here. I see every reason for articles on people of all backgrounds here as soon as they pass WP:BIO (etc), and have approved many as an AFC reviewer. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Contributors to this discussion should be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vhubbard FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to support WP:NAUTHOR. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There does not appear to be enough independent sources available to establish notability. --Jayron32 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep per the sources below. --Jayron32 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NVM. Delete because the cited reviews are not original Kirkus reviews, but part of a self-written promotional program also run through Kirkus. --Jayron32 13:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author/emunah-la-paz/ A reliable source gives information about this author, and has published reviews for two of her books four years apart from one another. Dream Focus 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a review of Why Do married men cheat with unnattractive women in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which I can't access due to GDPR. Is three book reviews each of a separate work enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR's The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work criterion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having been able to get access via the wayback machine, it appears to be a reprint from Blogcritics, no idea if that makes a difference or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep despite the subject's poor behavior on Wikipedia. Three of her books have been reviewed by reliable sources. I have added quotes from two Kirkus Reviews to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, the "review" you added with this edit is the same indie stuff I removed for good reason here; this "review" is also part of the paid-for Indie program; neither is an independent reliable source. Dream Focus, your "source" is a Pro Connect page paid for by the author or someone closely connected to her; it is not a WP:RS or anything like one. Jayron32, you might be interested in this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Kirkus Indie has been discussed at RSN before and found unreliable and to not count towards notability due to being paid-for coverage, see [[35]] Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_330#Kirkus_Indie. The normal reviews that Kirkus produces are generally reliable and count towards notability. I didn't realise the reviews were Kirkus Indie, definite NAUTHOR fail. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I read Kirkus Reviews and it seemed like a legit publication. If you think they are not, I can modify my vote again. --Jayron32 19:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32 More important, I think, is for you to form your own views on the individual reviews on Kirkus FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have views. I read evidence and make my best assessment. When new evidence is presented, I take the new evidence into account and make any necessary changes. As I said, I read the Wikipedia article on the company and it passed the "sniff test" for me, I had never heard of it before a few hours ago; that is unsurprising however, of the billions of things in the world, many of them I have never heard of. But I am willing to learn about them. If you have reason to believe I am wrong, and that Kirkus is not a reliable publication, I will change my vote. --Jayron32 19:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I refer you ^^^^ to by purchasing a Kirkus indie review, authors can have the opportunity to build some name recognition please. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From reading https://www.kirkusreviews.com/indie-reviews/, the author submits a request for a review and has to pay for it as we (at least $425). The author then can, if he/she likes the review, have it posted. Here's a source table evaluating that:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Kirkus Indie reviews No Paid for by author, published only if author wants it to be ~ Written by third party, but results only available if favorable Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) It reads: Our indie reviews are written by qualified professionals, such as librarians, nationally published journalists, creative executives and more. While we do not guarantee positive reviews, unfavorable reviews can be taken as valuable feedback for improvements and ultimately do not have to be published on our site. With our most popular review option priced at $425, you can receive an affordable book review that could generously boost your writing career.. So they don't sell fake reviews, still legitimate, not user submitted, but since they are only getting reviewed if paid to do so, that disqualifies it. It does say "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". Kirkus used to be considered a reliable source for book reviews, I not sure when they changed how they did things. Dream Focus 19:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are still reliable for their normal book reviews, it's just that their indie reviews are not reliable. I agree that their pay for review program does sully their reputation somewhat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and not at all clear that this self published author has won significant critical attention in reliable independent sources to pass the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR either. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No signs of this being notable. Evidence seems to suggest the author created this promotional article, and added in a claim one of her books was a bestseller, but no evidence of that found anywhere. Only reviews are at two paid reviews and a blog which is probably not reliable for notability. Dream Focus 19:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:19, 18 November 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 Klara Hitler. Sandstein 12:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Hiedler[edit]

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

She's not notable; her only claim to notability in this article is because she's related to Hitler; see WP:Notability is not inherited and WP:INVALIDBIO. wizzito | say hello! 05:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:30, 13 November 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. SouthernNights (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Liew[edit]

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

I do not think the subject has received enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. The International Business Times is generally unreliable, per WP:IBTIMES; my own search did not turn up anything substantial besides a lot of promotional press releases. His official website (linked in the article) indicates an extensive effort at cross-wiki promotion. DanCherek (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1,2 are about F&B events, with a single line mentioning him attending them.
Source 3, a recipe compilation, with just his introduction and a few other chefs scanned in archive.org.
Source 4, a master thesis. There are a couple of pages with a decent writeup abou his writing style. However, the author is unknown, and master thesis are generally not as rigourous defended as PhD thesis and thus generally not used as reliable sources here.
Source 8/9, are the same source from a newspaper, about him being appointed into a role in the said newspaper.
Sources 6, 10, 12, 13, these Chinese sources are based in China, which is far from the home market, Malaysia. One may argue that the subject might be interested in expanding into China, however, this may allude that these mainland China sources are part of a significant PR campaign push. These articles were also dated Oct/Nov 2021 period, which means the coverage of the author wasn't significantly long as compared to his career.
Source 14, a Who's who list, with only his writeup conveniently scanned into archive.org.
Sources 15 - 24, are his column works, simply to back the statement that he had wrote in those publications. Proven? yes. Reliable? yes. Signifcant coverage? no, as these are about dishes, resturants, or other personalities. And can be considered as primary sources.
There are two sources which are his book. I choose to leave them out from analysis as I believe they were made in error (in terms of more of styling than usage) and would have been rectified easily.
Even after editing the article to bring down the promotional tone, the sources in the new version are no less promotional or PR-ish. The article had been sitting in Draftspace for many months, due mainly due to COI and promotional tone, and have had gone through multiple reviewers who shared the same concerns. I would have rejected it if it wasn't for the consideration that I was the one of the reviewers who declined one of its earlier submissions. – robertsky (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel like little to no attempt was made to search for the subject under their non-English character name. Because there's a lot of coverage available. And Robertsky's claim above that Chinese article coverage is somehow negative is...not how any form of notability guideline is worded. Anyways, here's an example of the many, many sources available on the person. Apologies for the poor English translation titles.
And there's plenty more coverage than just this. So long as you Google search for 食公子 instead of the English version of his pseudonym. SilverserenC 08:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silver seren, you are wrong about there's no effort made to search under their non-English character name. I evaluate primarily English and Chinese (sometimes Korean and Japanese) sources as these are the languages that I am familar with. I do my research in these different languages when the article calls for it, and even using native search engines, i.e. Baidu, Sohu, etc. Some of what you listed here were in the article initially, see Special:Permalink/1054175782, and the line about Source 6, 10, 12, 13 covers them. I read through the links you posted here, especially those that aren't in previous version, they are repetative and written in a promotional manner, somewhat akin to press releases. Many of these articles are posted recently as well, which again, I feel that it is a promotional push. – robertsky (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments As, the magazines and newspapers stipulated in Robertsky's claim, if the writers had written for so much of magazines and also written columns in Nanyang Siang Pau (one of the four mainstream newspapers in the Malaysia) for more than 20 years (since 1988 regards to the master thesis and so others publications), then he should have enough notability or at least famous in the food world of Malaysia.Arrisontan (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arrisontan, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Google Scholar shows that the paper isn't cited at all, thus having limited, if not no scholarship influence. Of course, Google Scholar may not reflect offline papers not published online, but the mater thesis is dated 2018, and most, if not all, new scholarly materials that can be reliably used are available online. Searches with different keywords, i.e. the Chinese title of the thesis, file URL, etc on Google and Baidu reveals the same outcome. It isn't even listed on Baidu's equivalent of Google Scholar. – robertsky (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable food critic in Malaysia and there are enough sources available as specified by Silverseren that make him pass the WP:GNG easily. I would say that he had written many columns in Malaysian newspapers which can be found if archived by the respective publishers. Berantral (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Berantral, again, these sources are promotional in nature. Take for example, in this source, which is listed by Sliverseren: 从1996年，始有第一个专栏，是以“廖圣然”为名，如果没记错，他在2000年才用“食公子”为笔名。 Translation: "From 1996, he wrote under the name "Liao Sheng Ran" when he first started writing, and if (I/someone) didn't remember wrongly, he started using the pen name "Si Gongzi" from 2000." (emphasis mine). I'm sorry, but how's that reliable reporting, using terms akin to 'if i remember correctly'?
      Also the content of this source is repeatedly posted here, here, and here. The article was being attributed to either "中国科创网" or "网络". 网络 may be a misattribution, but if it is not, it meant that the source of the article was simply from the Internet. How's that reliable? "中国科创网" leads to here, which is either not indexed properly by the various search engine, or the article simply does not exist. Interestingly, this site when clicked on the site logo from an unrelated article in the header, leads to another site with the same content, same layout. SEO gaming? The "中国科创网" search on also leads to a similarly either not indexed, or article can't be found site [36].
      I am not denying the fact that he has written many columns in Malaysia newspapers, but please provide better and more reliable sources. Most of these sources were inserted only after being told repeatedly to the author, who's a COI editor, that it lacks reliable sources. – robertsky (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Robertsky Thank you for your explanation. Just to contribute some of my opinions.
1. Sources 1&2 although is about F&B event in 2007 and 2017 reported in Malaysia newspapers, i know that it has no significant coverage, but it indeed has old report about his activity and a line about him as food critic in Malaysia, so he is still has food career activities til now. Although trivial but he has been noticed.
2. Although the master thesis did not have the reliability, but it can regarded as the society has interest to the subject and discuss about his writing style and contributions.
3. I think currently there are many China reports was due to his biography had published recently and raise the notice of China and the repetative probably due to the contents and sources were came from his biography contents.
4. By the way, he has written the column in Feminine (风采) magazine which is the Malaysia top Chinese magazine since 2000-2013 and he had been interviewed with many politicians that I could found from 2008-2013. He should be received a mentioned or noticed from people. The date and issue can be look to the bottom of the page. Take it as references although it is primary resources. The part of collections archived that I could found as below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fF6WS3g6itK1n_i-tHbNQnApNYYexXx2/view?usp=sharing
5. Furthermore, I think he had written for more than 10 magazines and mainstream newspaper Nanyang Siang Pau's columns in his career. (Noted that Nanyang Siang Pau has 176798 circulation in Malaysia in 2000 until 2007 still have 114049 daily circulation, refer sources:https://mediamalaysia.net/archives/4418). I dont think he is totally not notability at all (although there is lack of Malaysia news significantly coverage about him). There is also China magazine that reprint his book content and he wrote column in China magazine. So I also don't think he is totally no market in China. Indeed, it is possible to get him expand the interest to China.
https://archive.org/details/20200623_20200623_1032/page/3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/20210909_20210909_0236
6. Regards to the magazine he wrote in 1998 which is sources 15,16 and 17 shown he used his penname 廖圣然，which means that he indeed use this as the pen name previously, in the below link can see in 2000 feminine i found in his biography, he is use 食公子 as penname. Take it as reference although it is a primary sources.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1msKiDDKvvkyWIWiW4fGhwKMoM58PqOay/view?usp=sharing
7. 如果没记错 is a kind of writing style to express the author opinion. It is not exactly a thing to consider it as unreliable. In addition, sometimes, the China websites would forward the news without permission. But some other webs are like from the country-based or state-based newspapers. Like sources 12 and 13 is original reports.
8. His book also published in Seashore Publishing Company, one of the famous publisher in HK and branch in Malaysia.
Therefore, I think this article can keep and improve.Arrisontan (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrisontan:
    point 1: refer to WP:SIGCOV.
    point 2: again not reliable, thus discussion about master thesis is moot.
    point 3: no comments.
    point 4: can be considered as primary sources, and original research.
    point 5: see WP:RSSELF and WP:SPS on mediamalaysia.net. no one here is denying the notability of the Nanyang Siang Pau, therefore using mediamalaysia.net to back your case is irrelevant. But notability of the newspaper does not equate to the notabilty of the subject, nor can be lent to the subject. although there is lack of Malaysia news significantly coverage about him therefore where's the proof of his notability in Malaysia? archive.org links may have copyright issues. who holds the copyright? the author or the publication? and they are primary sources as well.
    point 6: as you have noted, primary source and thus may be original research.
    point 7: i am still of the belief that the articles are promotional in nature. how would you know that only sources 12 and 13 are original? If so, can we say that all these sources can be collapsed into these two sources?
    point 8: again, notability cannot be lent. – robertsky (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should put a comprehensive evaluation. The word I spoke of that Malaysa news lack of significantly coverage was due to it is hard to find the archived old news in Malaysia but he has also not totally that no news report about him. As he had worked for some famous magazines and newspaper for many years and interviewed for politicians from 2008-2013, it can assumes that he received some attention and I just stating that he had market in China too, which you say that it is "far from his home market" is not 100% true. Because you are judge on the basis that he has no market in China, so it is probably a promotional content. I think that is also not true. And he has fulfill the WP:BASIC with the references. Sources 12 has written the sources come from his own net, it is a founded in 1997, was approved by the State Council Information Office. Sources 13 also written the sources is on his own original report from China Internet Information Center. Other news sources 10, sources 5, sources 6 is also from reputable web which you can got the relevant information from Internet. Arrisontan (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally would have given this article a chance to develop as it passed AfC process. There is no hurry to discover each and every sources. There is an indication offline sources may exists. The journalist has long contributed to major publication and his body of work pass WP:NWRITER. I would lean keep and concur with User:Silver seren and User:Berantral (especially, because they know the Malaysian articles really well). Happy to improve it as clutter has been cleaned already. 167.98.47.71 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 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 12:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabon Dutt Gono High School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The cited government webpage contains nothing more than the name of the school. Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Worldbruce (talk) 05:47, 13 November 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. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Bar[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:NCORP. While I believe this is a borderline case, I do not think this article has sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Gothamist, ShermansTravel, NYCGo, and Newsday are all trivial coverage per NCORP's definition, while NYTimes and DNAinfo provide essentially local news coverage, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a newspaper.

Note that this nomination is not a comment on the quality of the article, which is high. I recently provided a second opinion on this article's GAN stating that while it should pass GA review, I had concerns about notability, which were subsequently discussed with the main author on the talk page. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Courtesy ping to @Armadillopteryx: and @Mikehawk10:. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article passes WP:AUD, which states that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. That source is The New York Times, which pretty clearly fits the bill as such a source. I agree that DNAInfo is a relatively local WP:NEWSORG. However, it's one that covers the size of New York City, which is comparable in population to Israel and has nearly four million more people than Ireland. Describing a NYC-wide news source as "local" rather than "regional" for the purposes of this guideline feels somewhat odd if the purpose is to determine notability; we'd almost never consider The Irish Times or The Times of Israel to be limited in determining notability for corporations.
Whether this coverage passes WP:CORPDEPTH or not might at first seem a bit off-putting, but the example there that A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger would count as "substantial coverage" of the business makes me think that the multiple news articles from DNAinfo covering the prolonged controversy of the bar's liquor license would also classify DNAinfo as providing substantial coverage, by analogy.
Finally, I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but this doesn't read like a news article and it isn't a sort of "notable for one event" article; the NYT piece doesn't provide coverage of the controversy over the licensing, after all, but instead serves as a review of the bar itself.
While this is a borderline case, I can't find anything within WP:NCORP that this clearly fails. The content does not appear to be advertorial anymore, so I don't see issues with WP:NOTSOAPBOX or any other portion of WP:NOT. Therefore, as this passes WP:NCORP and isn't encompassed by exclusionary criteria of WP:NOT, I lean towards a keep rather than a delete. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed !vote. It seems to me that when you take away the sources that are obviously trivial (RTL Luxembourg, for example), almost every other source fails a criteria on WP:NCORP's list ("inclusion in lists of similar organizations", "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies" for the DNAinfo articles"). So we're left with just one NYTimes article - and I have to ask myself whether they would cover the bar if it opened in Chicago or Seattle. But I understand your perspective. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Calling the NYT “local news” is a first. It’s a newspaper of record in the largest city in the United States. That coverage plus the other sources easily passes NCORP and make this a GA. —Kbabej (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New York Times also covers local stuff in New York City. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't this still be a statewide source covering it, even if it's in the newspaper's area of circulation? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mikehawk10, the NYT does cover the local scene. Not everything they cover is automatically of national or statewide interest/notability. The NYT covering NYC is no different from the Dayton Daily News covering Dayton. —valereee (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This bar seems to have attracted only routine types of coverage in the local media, so does not need to be in an encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article's subject seems to have received significant coverage in the media. Generally getting profiled in a source as high-profile internationally as the New York Times is an extremely strong sign of notability, and this article's subject seems to have received coverage elsewhere which have been used as sources for the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes NCORP as the New York Times is clearly one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)*[reply]
    • Comment That is necessary, but not sufficient. NCORP states a single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I believe that is what we have here, given that the other sources can be regarded as trivial per NCORP's definitions and examples. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Luckily, the keep !voters aren't saying that there's only one single independent source that covers it significantly, we're saying that it passes that WP:MULTSOURCES requirement that you've quoted. We have both the piece from The New York Times and six articles from DNAinfo. Unless all six of those DNAinfo articles are trivial coverage (and they don't appear to be so to me), then we wouldn't be relying on a single source. We're also saying that, in addition to passing WP:MULTSOURCES, it passes the separate WP:AUD requirement owing to the coverage from The New York Times. The sources seem to enough for the article to be written well and to be written from a neutral point of view to such an extent that the article's description and history sections can be built out without relying in a significant way on self-published sources or promotional sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do think that the six DNAinfo articles are trivial coverage, since they appear to be coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies, one of the examples given for trivial coverage by NCORP. Re WP:AUD, there's clearly room for reasonable disagreement, and I would be interested to know if there is any precedent regarding how we treat highly nationally influential sources that are still regionally/locally-based. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sourcing seems adequate to demonstrate notability. Also, I am rather shocked that having participated in the GAR and approved the article, the nominator has chosen to nominate it for deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Cwmhiraeth: I get that it's unusual, but why is it shocking? The GA criteria aren't related to notability, which is handled separately, in discussions like this one. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Having described the nomination as a "borderline case", I am shocked that you did not take into consideration the time and effort expended by the article creator, a long-time editor of good standing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NYT in this case is local coverage, and I'm not finding any coverage that isn't local. Just becaue it's the NYT doesn't automatically make the coverage national or even regional. The NYT does cover the local scene. The bar is of only local notability. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: clearly notable. a search of what isn’t already in use in the article turns up little local paper, nyt, and others. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/fashion/rise-an-unpretentious-gay-bar-opens-in-hells-kitchen.html —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that source is already in use in the article, 8 times in fact. It has also been discussed above. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: A friendly reminder its not required for you to comment on every !vote on this AfD. Its bordering on WP:BLUDGEONing. --Kbabej (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you're right. I'll sit back and let the process happen. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer: article creator) per Mikehawk10 and others. As has been noted, this article is sourced to standalone coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources (mostly The New York Times and DNAinfo). While DNAinfo is local, the NYT is a paper of record with a national focus and international audience, so it does satisfy the WP:AUD requirement of WP:NCORP.
I think that when an AfD rationale is borderline at best, wikilawyering to delete a GA-quality article does not seem to serve to improve the encyclopedia, and it results in a clear net negative.
I also have some doubts about whether this AfD was started in good faith, as the nominator stopped participating in the ongoing talk page discussion for three days, during which they actively edited on other parts of the encyclopedia. They then waited until the precise 12-hour interval when this article was on the main page for DYK to nominate it for deletion, which doesn't seem likely to be a coincidence. I found that disappointing, to say the least. Armadillopteryx 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is enough news coverage to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 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 03:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic hoaxes[edit]

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

WP:TNT - NPOV issues, style issues, etc. Possibly could redirect to a completely new list article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree on WP:TNT. It's not clear that any of the sources even refer to a concept of "Islamic hoaxes". It seems it might be a sparse list of things that mainstream Muslims don't agree with? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is written so elliptically that it's hard to understand. The article seems to be mostly about trying to disprove certain claims about Islam made by critics of Islam, which is not what the title "Islamic hoaxes" implies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is just a very loosely tied together list of hoaxes that are related to Islam. I know WP:WAX is generally to be avoided, but this article does not exist for any other religion (that I could find) and it's quite unclear as to what this article is actually about as a whole. Alternatively, salvage what we can from this article and merge what is worthwhile into List of common misconceptions#Islam. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 15:09, 13 November 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 03:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Reinhart[edit]

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

This is a WP:FRINGEBLP of a non-notable subject. I can find no reviews of her books in reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. I don't think winning the Charles Harvey Award for Exceptional Service to Astrology ([37]) counts for WP:ANYBIO. The best source I could find is [38], but it's a book by astrologers published by an occult publisher. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 November 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 12:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come Wind[edit]

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

The band has no signifcant coverage. The article is cited to YouTube videos. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this mistake-riddled article was the best coverage I could find. Rusalkii (talk) 02:33, 13 November 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 04:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Creek Cricket Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diamond Creek Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in 2020, article still fails to establish notability, does not meet WP:GNG RegistryKey(RegEdit) 02:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, unable to find any reliable third party sources. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 7,000 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there will be more than sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass the WP:NCRIC requirements for Australian club teams as this cricket club does not play at Grade Level. The above 7,000 hits on Trove are all likely to be passing mentions, such as scorecards, fixture announcements, community events ect. I can't see anything that satisifies wider GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non notable run-of-the-mill social cricket club of no social or sporting merit Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCRIC and as StickyWicket says although there are mentions, there's not enough for a WP:GNG pass. Not seeing a suitable WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non notable local club that doesn't play at grade level. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as with last year, clearly fails cricket-specific criteria and general notability criteria Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:29, 18 November 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. Disregarding Sarah Hayland as sock/SPA and Cherri Gipson for making no policy-based argument. Sandstein 12:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sluka[edit]

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

Promotional spam for non notable musician. Built by a plethora of SPA accounts and IPs. Sourced to advertorials and non reliable sources with one possible exception but one source is not enough. (Note, this is a cleaned up article, see here for pre cleanup. Promotional editing is returning post cleanup.) (side note, Hey Oh video is good for a laugh, not just for how awful the song is but also the bad faked crowd. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried to give this musician the benefit of the doubt, because he has been around for a long time and has a few fairly informative album reviews (e.g. [39], [40]). He has been noticed in several publications, as already cited in the article, but on closer reading just about all of those articles appear to be reprinted press releases and self-written promos, with peacock language like "Christopher Sluka doesn’t do things halfway" or (get this) "Multi-faceted performer, songwriter and aesthetic visionary" that you would not get from objective reporters. Non-peacock coverage is sparse and purely local. Granted, he's good at spreading self-promotional materials around the Internet, but after several decades he just hasn't achieved much objective coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Christopher Sluka has significant information (although minimal) published online that has been cited throughout the page. It would be better to keep this page live and give it time to build-up using new, more relevant information.---Cherri Gipson 19:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)— Cherri Gipson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Just because it's online that doesn't mean it's reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your point, which is why I'm in the favor of giving this page some time to mature by editing in reliable, new information.---Cherri Gipson 19:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)— Cherri Gipson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I agree with Cherri Gipson. It would be fair to give this page a chance to add in new information and remove the outdated info.---Sarah Hayland 18:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Hayland (talk • contribs) — Sarah Hayland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - As per my research, I believe that this page has not been updated and contains outdated information. However, there is new information that can be found online. It is advised to give this page some time to mature by adding relevant information and removing self-promotional materials as pointed out by Doomsdayer520. ---Sarah Hayland 18:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Hayland (talk • contribs) — Sarah Hayland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage. Obvious socks and meatpuppets are obvious. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:55, 20 November 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 Move to Draft:X-Men '97.. Sandstein 12:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men '97[edit]

X-Men '97 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Animated series that is currently scheduled to be released in 2023, so it is clearly still very early in the development process, barely in pre-production. Per WP:NFF, it should be draftified as soon as possible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify WP:TOOSOON. Pahiy (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Draftify This is an odd one. If it goes back to draft, there's a risk of this tug of war between draftspace and mainspace for most likely a year. – The Grid (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Until there is confirmed actual animation occurring per WP:NFF, this should be in the draft space. That's a clear benchmark it needs to hit to justify its existence in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Strong Keep, to be honest). Many reliable sources are already discussing it in depth, and it's already getting significant coverage. Secondly, a frame of its animation was shown in its announcement — so it's safe to say that production has started. Thirdly, if it's draftified, it's unclear where the information in this article would temporarily reside — which indeed might lead to a tug-of-war. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Virtually all of the shows announced today at Disney+ Day are being discussed extensively by reliable sources, so I see no reason why this one should be exempt from WP:NFF. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What frame was shown? I didn't see any, only the use of the Wolverine picture frame meme from the original series, along with the series logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This character sheet was shown, that along with multiple directors, producers and voice actors announced indicate this is already in production. - --JoaumBoladaum (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just a screenshot of the logo from the Disney+ special, not an actual frame of the series. Like I said, it's still early in its pre-production stage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Per nominator. It's WP:TOOSOON. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, per all of the above arguments for that outcome. The draft will not be left idle, given the project to which it is attached. BD2412 T 22:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft so that it can be published when the show aired on Television. Berantral (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify WP:NORUSH, two years away from release and we haven't gotten any footage from the show. - Richiekim (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify according to WP:TOOSOON as not a lot of details have extensively been revealed and also according to WP:NFF, due to the series not starting production. WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to X-Men (TV series)#Revival, then split it out again at the appropriate time. That keeps the information available to readers and will (hopefully) prevent recreation in the meantime. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • More info can definitely be put at the "Revival" section, and "X-Men '97" will redirect there, but that shouldn't prevent what currently exists to still exist as a draft to be built as the proper article until it can move back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with it being drafted, but I didn't see any discussion here about redirection or merging. I saw a lot of talk about procedural timing instead of what would benefit readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. Well obviously as a result of it being drafted, you can't have a mainspace redirect to the draftspace, so X-Men '97 will then need to redirect to X-Men (TV series)#Revival. And I don't see having this deletion discussion as any reason to not go ahead with adding more info at that section now if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I have no further arguments to add to what's already been discussed and linked above, as I agree with the relevant policies and guidelines already stated; this article is existing too soon. -- /Alex/21 08:07, 18 November 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Max Lawrence[edit]

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

I tried to clean this BLP article up today; in the process I don't think this meets WP:GNG. Also there are still a lot of issues with reliable sources WP:RS as of now. If you look at the prior AfD from October 2008 and the article talk page there is a history of either COI or sock puppet issues too. Joojay (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — @Joojay, if they have their art work exhibited isn’t that per se a requisite in WP:CREATIVE for then to be considered notable? Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately they have no significant exhibitions, so it does not meet the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Joojay (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Meets a criterion from WP:CREATIVE. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Celestina007, which exhibition is considered "significant" for this artist, in your opinion? Joojay (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joojay, In all, at the very least, I think a WP:BASIC argument can be made here. I’m striking out my original !vote and changing it to WK. Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep — I believe the summation of all the sources optimized here makes a BASIC argument plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Celestina007, which source(s) has "depth of coverage", all I see here is trivial coverage of a subject (unless it was a primary source or self-published). Joojay (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC doesn’t require WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPTH to be met that is literally the idea of WP:BASIC as opposed to GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the description again on WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I am asking, where is there significant coverage? He has multiple sources as I stated before just in name, it doesn't fulfill BASIC, GNG, CREATIVE. Joojay (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a reminder this is a BLP, and the primary sources don't count towards notability of a subject.Joojay (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joojay “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.” you keep asking for SIGCOV when BASIC doesn’t require SIGCOV and what you stated above pertains to GNG not BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just peeped JodyB's, rationale for the Keep close which for record purposes I hadn’t done prior now & the rationale they gave for closing this as a Keep back in 2008 correlates with why I !voted a week keep. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 13 November 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 04:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omari Douglas[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, one significant role in a 5-episode series. WP:TOOSOON. MB 02:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain, does that invalidate MB's rationale of WP:TOOSOON? Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — An imperatives example of not just yet. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my new citations added and also Google news. Plenty of citations about him, in reliable publications. Chelokabob (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added 10 new citations and there are plenty more. He meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Chelokabob (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The citations currently in the article are sufficient to prove he clears WP:GNG. GGT (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that many new sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:11, 13 November 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. No rational reason to delete article. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalii Sediuk[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vitalii Sediuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In addition to the fact that, sorry, he showed his ass at Eurovision and pestered people, he is not known for anything. Everyone quickly forgot about him. There is no encyclopedic significance. We vote, colleagues. Redaktor me (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Well referenced article that submitter seems to have a personal issue with. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per above. Repeated references in CNN, The Guardian, LA Times, etc. Known for repeated harassment of celebrities, not just a single incident. Rusalkii (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per both Bob drobbs & and Rusalkii. Pahiy (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Regardless of whether you agree with his antics, the coverage easily meets WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was never properly formatted so there's technically no AfD of the article. – The Grid (talk) 03:05, 13 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_13&oldid=1057017771"