Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 13	October 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout (2022 film)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Going on Netflix isn't enough for notability.

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM with multiple independent reviews, such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:4meter4 Lijil (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Mexico, and United States of America. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like the article has been improved over the course of this discusion Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Glick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only had three small film roles and two small TV roles. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR, current article is completely devoid of reliable sources and I was unable to find any in searches. Keeping this article on Wikipedia would quickly run into WP:BLP issues. W 42 13:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Will this article see the 17th anniversary of its creation (created 20 Nov 2005 by Stephen Day)? I hope so, I've tried to do a bit of improvement based on some quick research which I think shows she meets GNG. Fun fact, Glick was in the 1981 ABC TV movie The Day the Loving Stopped where she played a younger version of the role played by Ally Sheedy--one of Sheedy's earliest film roles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Numbers 5 and 6 of the new sources are primary and don't count towards notability. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Aside from the newly-added sources, there are plenty of hits at newspapers.com, with more than just passing mentions. The subject passes WP:GNG and she appeared in notable productions. Dflaw4 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR per the sources added to the article.4meter4 (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnis Energy Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are routine coverage only. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than routine coverage, we also have profiles and stock prices which also fail criteria.Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are significant number of online sources about this article which build a narrative that the company doesn't pass notability guidelines, but if search rightly about the company itself as well as its subsidiaries mentioned in the article, there are duly covered sources from reliable newspapers. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mehmood.Husain: where are these RSs and if you have access please add them to the page as there may then be a case for WP:HEY. I could not find any RSs via Newsbank data base and on that basis fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could only find routine coverage. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pettitt[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NSINGER, was unable to find anything online that established notability. Article has one source. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. The one source is to his bio at his place of employment, Dainfern College, which is a private school for grades K-12, not a university. He's essentially a run of the mill school music teacher. The competition mentioned is for school students; again a run of the mill school music competition. There is nothing here indicating any aort of notability.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Torner[edit]

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

Here we go again. I more or less said what I had to say during round 1: there is no compelling evidence of notability, just scraps of passing mentions amounting to nothing much. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:54, 14 October 2022 (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/2022 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. This was just deleted, and this article is no different from the version that was just deleted. Otherwise, delete and salt for failing WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Sports, and Moldova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @FormalDude:, who took part in the previous discussion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G4. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG with lack of WP:SIGCOV. G4 does not apply as it specifically excludes pages deleted via soft delete. Frank Anchor 13:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Torner[edit]

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

In the absence of non-trivial coverage, “president of the Moldovan biathlon federation” does not really strike me as being notable under WP:ATHLETE. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Moldova. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources provide no evidence of notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of films and television shows containing scenes filmed at UCLA[edit]

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

Fails WP:SYNTH. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No precedent for category:Films shot at (college campus) unless there's some notable professional studio on campus. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. It's unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft with no citations or indication of notability. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other's comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It has already been mentioned above, but this does fail WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRUFT. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious listcruft of “X by non notable intersection with Y” variety Dronebogus (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom Fifthapril (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. NavjotSR (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mihalis (album). A request to semi-protect the page can take place at the WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Dance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft deleted and recreated not long afterwards, with the same issues raised by the former nominator, namely that there is no indication of notability nor significant coverage. The references in Greek, when translated, are short, brief news articles with barely a mention and not to any significant extent. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Cyprus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:SIGCOV. WP:SALT to prevent further recreation.4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mihalis (album). Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mihalis (album) and add page protection to prevent recreation. QuietHere (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is already redirected in Mihalis (album). This article should be deleted already. Ploreky (Got any problem?) 11:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC+8)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mihalis (album). There does not appear to be enough coverage to support this having a separate article, but I believe a redirect would be more beneficial to readers than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of genera from the Cambrian[edit]

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

Per WP:SALAT, and per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extinct plants. This is just too broad a topic to ever be a useful list. This has previously been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#List_of_genera_from_the_Cambrian_Period. The article's creator has ignored requests to discuss the article. The article creator moved the article back into mainspace pretty much unaltered after an admin moved it into draftspace. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. This list has zero guarantee of completeness, accuracy, or practical utility. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have blocked the article's creator for 24 hours for disruptive editing. After that period, the user can comment here on why the article should be retained. I take no position on the article's suitability for inclusion, but have noted the user repeatedly moving the article out of draft space. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to cover all Cambrian genera. Moreover, the author does not try to solve the many problems that exist in the page at all, and tries to start the list of another period as it is. We should stop it before it happens. (Note: talk page can he found here, looks like that is not moved.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too large, hardly curatable, little utility. If deleted, there will also be some cleanup (i.e. draft deletion) required for Draft:List of genera from the Cambrian Period and List of genera from the cambrian and possibly some other connected draft debris - there's a bit of a tangle there currently following the author trying to create/rename them into the perfectly ludicrous List of genera from the Phanerozoic (that would be at least 240k entries...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry for all the problems I have caused. I just wanted to let people know about most of the animal and plant species discovered in paleontology. I'm an avid paleontologist, I was just tired of finding no list of genera that were discovered during the phanerozoic era. I wanted to do it right. I'm really sorry to have caused you so much trouble. I promise from now on I won't change the name of the pages I create anymore. I'm really sorry!

And of course, I don't want to put all the genres that have been discovered. I promise not to do it again. I have learned from my mistakes. Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lamborghini. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamberghini[edit]

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

The clear primary topic of this term will be the vehicle at the primary topic title, Lamborghini; the obscure song is named for the car, or more precisely a slang alternative spelling of the name of the car, which is instantly understood to reference the car. BD2412 T 20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Lamberghini while keeping Lamberghini (song) at its current title would result in unnecessary disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:TWODABS situation. The disambiguation function can be accomplished in a hatnote. We routinely have alternative spellings directed to the primary topic article while obscure uses of those alternative spellings are disambiguated. BD2412 T 20:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lamborghini and add {{redirect|Lamberghini|the song|Lamberghini (song)}} there. PamD 09:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lamborghini. But to respond to PamD, there are many titles with "Lamborghini", so it would be illogical to put "Lamberghini (song)" at the main topic along with "Lamborghini (disambiguation)" instead of inside of it, which it currently already does. This should just the redirected. Wretchskull (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the car as misspelling of PT with hatnote per PAMD. MB 02:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep /nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 13:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harderbahn[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything of note about this cable car. It's more than one hundred years old, which means it should be. But I can find nothing in English, German or Italian sources that would convey notability. The Swiss German and German articles are similarly barren (actually less sourcing) and I cannot identify a merger target as it appears undue in Interlaken Star Mississippi 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Switzerland. Star Mississippi 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Steong keep There 758 results in Swiss newspapers. This cable car, pass GNG with no problem.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A possible redirect/merge target is Harderkulm. I have not taken the time to wade through the Google Books results to see whether this needs keeping or redirecting. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It currently has sufficient citations to make it notable.Nempnet (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that this seems like something that would easily clear GNG, but the existing citations absolutely do NOT show a GNG pass. One is a dead link, the other is not independent of the subject (appears to be by the company that operates the Harderbahn). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malo95. I'm not sure where the nominator was looking, but I'm finding multiple English language articles about it just searching Google for "Harderbahn". The chances of there not being more articles in the various languages of Switzerland is nil. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG == chris_j_wood (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been significantly expanded since nomination Garuda3 (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian Nobel laureates[edit]

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

There are no references, and for a good reason: These Nobel Prizes, except for the one given today, are given to individuals who were not Ukrainian citizens, and never are considered as Ukrainian Nobel prizes outside Ukraine. Thus the list must be shortened to one entry. List of one entry is not a list. Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been redone to List of Ukrainian Nobel laureates and nominees with nine nomenees added. More references added.--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are still good reasons we do not have such articles for any other country. Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about Burmese or Welsh?--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to be nominated for deletion I guess. Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list provides a useful information with all necessary references, structured well.--Dƶoxar (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. First, listing people who are not Ukrainian is cultural appropriation and misleading. Second, nominations are not made public until after 50 years of nominations. I was myself approached several times to nominate candidates, and every time the first message was that I am not allowed to disclose any details about this, printed in red color. Thus, info on the nominations is just random and does not represent anything. Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. "People who are not Ukrainian" are listed separately with clear explanation of what is their connection to Ukraine. There is no statement they are Ukrainians and you can't call it "cultural appropriation". 2. As scientists from Ukraine made a great influence on the science, it is a matter of interest how they are represented by Nobel prize. Non-existance of the Ukrainian state for the most of 20th century is not a reason to ignore it.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note "claimed by nominators" added for clarity.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship for Ukrainian-born laureates added.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, for example, Charpak was born in Poland and then immigrated to France with his family to avoid pogroms instigated by Ukrainians. He did not speak Ukrainian, he never said he is Ukrainian. By all definitions he is not. His article defines him as Polish-born French which is absolyutely correct. Now, Ukraine wants to appropriate him because in all of the existence of Ukraine they did not manage to produce a single Nobel Prize winner in physics. Wikipedia is not the venue to ptromote this. Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call it "appropriate"? Again: the article doesn't state persons in the lists are Ukrainians. It is called to answer the question who of Nobel prize laureates and nominees were related to Ukraine. Ales Bialiatski is imprisoned by Belarusian government but still is related to Belarus. The similar situation was with Liu Xiaobo. Someone's attitude to the place of his origin doesn't cancel his relation to it.--Dƶoxar (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the article header it's made clear: "there were several laureates and nominees who were born or worked in Ukraine before it gained independence in 1991, most of them are not considered to be Ukrainian representatives".--Dƶoxar (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be an unanswerable question. A list, in and of itself, is unlikely to have references showing it is notable. And yet clearly there are lots of lists of different things on WP. So I can only judge on what seems useful to me, and I think a list of individuals who were born or worked in Ukraine and who got a Nobel is worth keeping. The actual content of such a page is a different debate. JMWt (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially fails WP:No Original Research as WP:SYNTH; and therefore fails WP:NLIST. At issue here is a matter of identity. When we say Ukranian do we mean nationality or ethnicity? Most of the people on this list were born or working in the Soviet Union in what is now geographically the Ukraine; and while they may or may not have been Ukranian in terms of ethnicity/culture they were not Ukranian in terms of nationality. Several of the people on this list are not identified as Ukranian within their biographies. In short, it's a bit of a tangle to slap a label of Ukranian without identifying what is really meant by the term. Further, no sources that I can tell actually address this partuicalar group as a list. It's hodge podge of original conclusions slapped together.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I guess the matter of identity should be clear from the article header: persons from Ukraine. As the Nobel prize is older than modern Ukrainian state this obviously means couple of things. So persons with Ukrainian citizenship are listed in the "classical" way and people who are clearly related to Ukraine but were not Ukrainian citizens are listed separately. 2. The list is mostly based on the information from the Nobel prize website (where "Ukraine" is even mentioned in laureates biographies, e.g. Mechnikov, Agnon, Waksman, Hofman, Alexievich). Claimed nominees are an exception, but again: the topic is a matter of interest, and if there are open statements by famous people published by trusted sources it is worth to be mentioned. --Dƶoxar (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses aren't helpful. Again, many of these people aren't "from the Ukraine" due to the political history of that nation which wasn't established until after many of these people won the Nobel. Further, the sources don't identify them as Ukrainian, so again this is original research. We need sources that actually identify these people as Ukrainian and as Nobel winners or nominees in the same source. Otherwise, this is an original topic that fails WP:NLIST and WP:OR.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - not sure what to make of it, there is little bit of everything here, but only one actual Ukrainian laureate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 UEFA Under-19 Futsal Championship squads[edit]

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

Yet another (incomplete) list of non-notable children with no evidence of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. The FAs and UEFA would be considered as non-independent in this case. The article has no navigational purpose since only one participant has a Wikipedia article. This is no different to 2022 U-16 International Dream Cup squads (AfD), 2022 UEFA Under-19 Futsal Championship squads (AfD) and 2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship squads (AfD). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 09:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too detailed, considering this is futsal and under-19. gidonb (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep WP:SNOW close, There is no consensus for the deletion of this article. (non-admin closure) HurricaneEdgar 13:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kherson Oblast (Russia) was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia). This article is to Autonomous Republic of Crimea what Kherson Oblast (Russia) is to Kherson Oblast so it would make sense to have another discussion on the topic in the current reality. --Base (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. Base (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion linked one of the arguments mentioned was WP:OVERLAP, linked with regards to the fact that Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast exists, so I will also add that there is a separate Russian occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. --Base (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol was created last week, this one was created 8 years ago. Curbon7 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And by an LTA, good point, I haven't checked the history for that one. Well, depending on the results of this RfA it might make sense to also nominate that article I guess. --Base (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. We have Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast alongside Donetsk People's Republic. Panam2014 (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Crimea (and Sevastopol) cases are closer to Kherson and Zaporizhzhia cases, than to those of Donetsk and Luhansk. In Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts those "republics" did, at least on paper, "exist" for 8 years, and even were recognised by some UN members for a brief period of time this year, even though it was always a de facto Russian occupation — it provides more ground to describe those instances separately, than in case of the rest of the regions which "existed" as separate "states" only for a negligible while. --Base (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Kherson and other articles were deleted for a variety of reasons, including already being duplicated by existing articles, the perceived ephemeralism of the states (i.e. WP:TOOSOON), lack of clarity at the time of how the states were administered (also TOOSOON), etc. This state has been (yes illegally, but that is regardless) a core part of the Russian Federation for 8 years, with its own government and laws clearly established; at this point, it is a fully functioning sub-national entity, not a temporary military occupation (even if Ukraine re-takes it). It is clearly not a duplicate of Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the article is worded quite neutrally and very explicitly says this is widely considered illegal. Curbon7 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the primary rationale of WP:OVERLAP used to delete Kherson and the alike oblast articles is not applicable here, with good reasons given by User:Curbon7. The proper recourse for Russian occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol (created only earlier this month) would be merging into this history section of this article, if it was felt they cover too much of the same ground. I note for the clarity of discussion both this article and Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China have been nominated for deletion after they were used as counterpoints to the argument of WP:OVERLAP in the Kherson oblast AfD. --Inops (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If there's overlap with a week old article then the week old article is the issue. CMD (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nobody has made an argument to delete this and the fact another article was deleted is not a valid reason. Unlike the Kherson case Russia controls the whole of Crimea and has for the last 8 years, so there are no issues with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Even if Crimea is eventually retaken by Ukraine it would still be legitimate to have this article as a significant part of the history of the place. Russian occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol is a week old and far less developed than this article, so it's not a duplicate - if anything that article should be merged into this one. I could understand if someone wanted to change the title of this article to describe the subject as a Russian occupation, but that's not a reason to delete it. Hut 8.5 11:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The week-old "Russian occupation of Aut. Rep. Crimea and Sevastopol" article is nowhere near the level of development as this article. This article also has a rationale for existing on the basis of the existence of the articles "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Luhansk People's Republic". It should be classified in a similar way to those two entities. Note: I myself have recently changed the Crimea Republic info-box to be more in line with the DPR and the LPR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep - Republic of Crimea is different from Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Crimea is currently under the Republic of Crimea which is already part of the federal subject despite internationally unrecognize, while Autonomous Republic of Crimea government still exist but not controlled. - Jjpachano (talk)

Note: The difference between Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea it's about administration in Crimea, If we gonna talk about Republic of Crimea is only about Russia (de facto), and if we gonna talk about Autonomous Republic of Crimea is only about Ukraine (de jure). Jjpachano (talk)

Keep. The Ukrainian Crimea and the Russian Crimea may refer to the same piece of land, but they are clearly different subjects. We need both due to WP:NPOV. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this now? Literally everyone other than the one who opened it has said keep; the consensus is that this didn't need to be opened. 166.196.75.8 (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please close this per WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus is overwhelmingly clear. Des Vallee (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid rationale provided for deletion. Others have already explained why the Kherson situation is much different and even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an Ukrainian administrative subdivision and this is a Russian one, they are de jure completely separate entities so it categorically cannot be a POVFORK. Considering this is the 3rd nomination it's WP:DEADHORSE at this point. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Venta. Acceptable AtD. Star Mississippi 13:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venta Gymnasium[edit]

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

Non-notable school, article only cites close primary website, and a search finds nothing even approaching RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Lithuania. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Stvbastian (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Venta. Prob no need to merge much, as a lot of the information is already there. Ingratis (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Deman[edit]

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

Non-notable racing driver. Fails GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Belgium. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frente Cívico[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No citations and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Previous AfD in 2005 referenced some sources appearing in a Google search, but most of the news articles and sources I found from searching were referring to either Civic Front for Santiago or Civic Front of Córdoba, neither of which seem to be related. The only sources I found for the Mexican organization called Frente Cívico were a twitter page and website for Frente Cívico Nacional—I can't tell if it's the same organization (and their about page is Lorem Ipsum text), but even so, doesn't establish notability. Also found a document from July 1964 which seems almost certainly unrelated ([7]). If someone can find better sources that establish notability it might be worth keeping around, but as is I'd support deleting this topic (and potentially replacing it with a disambig page for the two Civic Front political parties that come up in searches). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mexico. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I somehow missed the 2018 AfD and only found the 2005 one. Given that the 2018 AfD found more sources for this specific organization, I'm willing to withdraw this. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Anamur[edit]

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

Quite apart from the intentionally confusing references, the poor grasp of English and the WP:OR to create the title "siege" or "battle", there is no indication of meeting WP:GNG at all. All sources which I have found describe the campaign as a whole as fairly minor, so having individual articles on extremely minor skirmishes is ridiculous. Either nuke them all or merge to the main article.AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, and Turkey. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the below articles on the same logic:

Procedural close. This is too complicated of bundled nomination to properly evaluate as a group. No prejudice against a speedy re-nomination of each of these articles in their own separate AFD.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I inquire where the complexity lies? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as dodgy and likely OR. There is a rash of these alleged battles and sieges from editors who seem to be pushing an agenda of historical glorification, which involves using dubious offline sources to suggest that random skirmishes or even non existent events were notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d be prepared to reconsider if anyone can find any in-depth coverage in RIS for any of these alleged events. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified other editors who are more capable of finding potential sources, or reviving the mess that are the existing ones, than I. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I have been thinking the exact same as Mccapra every time I've seen each of these horrible articles. All these articles suffer from WP:VER, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:RS issues. They are all made and primarily edited by (often brand) new users (which I honestly find questionable and not a coincidence, though that's another story). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly some material should be merged into Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I, which is a valid article. Possibly these are valid redirects. Still, given the pattern, I'm not going to worry about it. None of the works by Claude Cahen I consulted had sufficient detail for this level of coverage. Srnec (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, too, have been seeing these articles crop up reviewing the new pages feed and they are of concern. As others wiser than I have noted, sourcing is patchy/obfuscatory, minor actions are blown up (see what I did there?) into 'battles' when history has not conferred that title on them and the whole lot are indeed redolent of someone creating a parallel universe of NPOV. They need to go until something more honest can be done. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, too much reliance on Primary sources and partially written out sources that fail WP:V at every turn. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wattala. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anne's Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Wattala[edit]

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

Non-notable school, sources cited don't come even close to RS sigcov, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources present are either primary or school/college databases. PROD was contested, so soft delete isn't an option. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wattala - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xaverius Senior High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, only cites the school's own website, and a search finds nothing even approaching RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG (also WP:NSCHOOL). –Austronesier (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No statement and sources that said that this school notable. Fails GNG. Stvbastian (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: after a search, doesn't appear to have any sources containing significant coverage. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bato, Leyte#Education. Star Mississippi 13:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bato School of Fisheries[edit]

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

Non-notable school, sources cited are all primary, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG (also WP:NSCHOOL). Looks like a good faith attempt to use WP as free web space to promote the school. –Austronesier (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Redirecting to Bato, Leyte#Education is a good option once we have at least one source in the target article so we redirect to content that's verifiable. None of the sources in the article currently proposed for deletion is suitable for that purpose. The only source that tells us that the school exists is their own Facebook page. –Austronesier (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ no evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bato, Leyte#Education, where it's mentioned. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bato, Leyte#Education. I wasn't able to find any in-depth RS coverage either, but the suggested redirect seems like a fine alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bato, Leyte#Education SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bato, Leyte#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bato, Leyte#Education. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations[edit]

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

Is this topic notable? Two puppet states of Russia, each one of them recognized another one, but there isn't even an embassy of DPR in South Ossetia or vice versa. Also there isn't, of course, enough coverage in RS, and the article is mostly repeating the information on DPR and South Ossetia themselves, not on there fictional relations. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Georgia (country), and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two entities are disputed territories that have been almost immediately annexed by Russia. They haven't existed long enough to have formal relations with other countries much less other disputed territories. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, South Ossetia hasn't been annexed by Russia. Only the DPR and the LPR have. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. In addition to the four sources in the article, I see the following sources: a 2018 piece in the Washington Post detailing how South Ossetia has established banking ties with the DPR to circumvent Western sanctions and allow Russian money to flow in; on banking relations, I also see Eurasianet from journalist Nikolaus von Twickel, who seems to have written quite a bit with The Moscow Times; and this piece by Hromadske also covers the murky financial ties between the two "separatist republics". We also have Ukrainian media covering South Ossetia's recognition of Donetsk (Interfax Ukraine), which followed this piece, already cited in the article; and two paragraphs from Nouvelle Europe on the DPR-South Ossetia relationship here. I also see coverage in the EU and US-funded JAMNews newspaper here. Of course, we also have a flurry of primary sources and local state-affiliated sources which likely cannot count towards the GNG like here, here, and here, and here. The nominator is also not entirely correct on the embassies part of their nomination, because there actually is a South Ossetian representative office in Donetsk (Representative Office of South Ossetia, Donetsk, a page which should probably be further scrutinized for GNG compliance) and a DPR office in Tskhinvali (TASS). You even get some "state visits". In conclusion, while these two polities certainly struggle with recognition, they seem to have enjoyed a bilateral relationship for 8 years which appears to me supported by multiple, reliable, in-depth, secondary coverage. Pilaz (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The minor detail is that the DPR isn't actually a self-declared state at the present time. Russia annexed the DPR on 30 September 2022, and it is now simply a Russian republic rather than an independent entity (note: the status is still disputed, obviously). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one of the two polities ceased to exist (?) does not mean the subject of the article, namely the relations between the two polities between 2014 and 2022, must also cease to exist. Wikipedia currently maintains quite a few well-sourced articles about the bilateral relations of defunct polities. Pilaz (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Despite the fact that both the DPR and the LPR have been annexed by Russia, South Ossetia itself is still a separate entity from Russia. Furthermore, it is my belief that the situation in South Ossetia (and Abkhazia) is different from that in the DPR/LPR, even though they might appear superficially similar. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have long histories as autonomous regions in Georgia, and their ethnic/linguistic makeups are distinctive. Their histories of de facto independence stretch back over 30 years, which is much longer than the DPR/LPRs' histories of just eight years. The DPR/LPR are indeed less distinctive than South Ossetia/Abkhazia, less independent, and much younger in terms of their political status, but that doesn't disqualify South Ossetia/Abkhazia automatically; these are two separate issues. So, the article is really flimsy on the side of the DPR/LPR, but it has a decent rationale on the side of South Ossetia/Abkhazia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All 4 sources are valid. Moreover, according to WP:RSPSS, TASS "is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians". Therefore, the TASS source is also valid to quote the South Ossetia's president. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Bbb23 (CSD G11, A7) (non-admin closure) WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Amin Shorkar[edit]

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

Poorly referenced autobiography, seemingly failing WP:NBIO. No significant RS coverage found through a brief search. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mcgrath[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources in the article are not significant coverage, and the Google search results (e.g., The Guardian) are for other people with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local authority councillors are not deemed "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles, but rather get to have articles only if they can be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the back of far, far more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Padilla[edit]

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

Article about amateur footballer who made a single appearance in Ligue 2 which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and French-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find much written about him. Some image captions and stats databases but this does not constitute SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Express (established 2021)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The likelihood that a local website established a year ago will be notable is slim to begin with. Of the citations provided in the article, most (Dallas Weekly and D Magazine) are purely local and fail WP:AUD. Of the two non-local sources, the first Columbia Journalism Review cite and the New York Times cite, despite being referenced multiple times in the article, make no reference whatsoever to the article subject. The second Columbia Journalism Review has a single line mentioning the subject, and is basically a passing reference. BD2412 T 17:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. BD2412 T 17:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another one with references that fail WP:ORGCRIT outside of local press. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above, that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". I am concerned, as well, that the legacy of the much more broadly notable and historical Negro newspaper, Dallas Express, is undermined by this fleeting same-named entity. Not to mention, there was also a Dallas Express Airlines active in the mid-1990s, about which Wikipedia doesn't have an article (yet). We don't need to dredge the bottom of the notability bucket for this a Wikipedia's only example of "pink-slime journalism". - I am dis big (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thalita do Valle[edit]

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

Extent of notability unclear - Mooonswimmer 16:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, Ukraine, and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find articles about her in the Journal de Quebec and similar tabloid newspapers, they rely mostly on sexy photos of her from tik tok. Nothing of substance is written about her, "model killed in war". The focus is on her looks, not a particularly good story, but it sells newspapers I suppose. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that all 6 sources refer to the same piece of information. Therefore, this person might be notable in the context of a specific episode of the war in Ukraine, but I couldn’t assess notability as a model or actress or GNG. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weak delete for WP:EVENT, but Fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atighot (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seem to be sufficiently notable based on her description in cited sources. But the current sourcing is weak. My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Feldman[edit]

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

Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NPOL. After combing through multiple search engines (per WP:BEFORE), no significant coverage in WP:RS-compliant sourcing was found. Sal2100 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, People, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn’t find any significant coverage, save for a few socialist blogs and self publications.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seethalakshmi Prakash[edit]

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

No notable subject, does not meet WP:SINGER. The reference are also not reliable Mcbath (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Asia, India, and Kerala. Mcbath (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO as the winner of a nationally televised singing competition.4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability falls under [Crieria] "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition". “Top Singer” is a popular daily prime time Malayalam language TV program Sankarnair2 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Schneider[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and German-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Thea[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English, French and Albanian-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa, and Albania. Skynxnex (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything worthwhile on 'Lambert Thea'. Can only find self-published sources on a 'Thea Lambert' who is obviously not the same person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Pánuco[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and Spanish-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Skynxnex (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ––FormalDude (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Leith Moody[edit]

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

The only substantial independent source is the Dictionary of Falklands Biography, which IMO is too local in scope to establish notability. It's not a good sign when his family gets as much space as his career does. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1. "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias." If a specialized reference work contains a biographical entry on the subject, than we should too. Arguments that the subject is too local fails to recognize the scope of the project at large, which seeks to be inclusive of the content found in specialized encyclopedias.4meter4 (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Christianity, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. It's awful niche, but that’s ok; I've seen a 60 sq ft firehose building in a ghost town survive per policy despite its notability only extending to the residents of a desolate prairie. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not 'niche' because its subject was the brother of the contemporaneous Richard Clement Moody, who was the first British Governor of the Falkland Islands, of which the subject was the leading clergyman at that same time of its foundation. (TrevelyanLittle)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bendemeer Secondary School[edit]

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

Gets a few mentions, but can't find any in-depth coverage to show this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORG, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable secondary school, fails WP:GNG Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bendemeer, Singapore: There is some coverage here, but it seems to be mostly trivial. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an unambiguous copyright violation. No judgement is made on merits of notability and no prejudice to creation of an article without copyright violations. Whpq (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khejarla Fort[edit]

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

Khejarla Fort should have some sort of historic claim, but it's not made here - in this almost entirely OR article. Sourced entirely to Rajasthan Tourism websites (it's now a hotel), there is no referencing/sourcing to justify the article's content. There are absolutely no inline citations. Should go to draft, ideally, but there's already a draft article in existence. As it stands, fails WP:GNG; WP:BUILDING. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, India, and Rajasthan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I moved this to draft at one point and the user objected apparently, as they copy and pasted the contents back. Copyvio shows the majority of it was copied from elsewhere. This user has tried to create this page several times so I think deletion over draftication is the right path. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept that a 17C fort is not notable is just utterly ludicrous. If India had any sort of proper heritage listing system this would obviously meet WP:GEOFEAT as it would in any European country. Using the lack of such a system to get the article deleted is pure WP:SYSTEMIC. Yes, it's a poor article, but the topic is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
revert to stub It gets a few mentions it travel books, so maybe notable, but the current version is a blatant copyright violation and has to go. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a notice on the page now for possible copyvio so it may well be that it is SD before we finish this discussion. FWIW I would have !voted keep but I fear there won't be anything left to keep soon. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Infant nutrition. Discussion on titling can take place on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infant feeding[edit]

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

seems to be a poorly written version of Infant nutrition. Nothing on the page which couldn't be merged there, nothing which could be notable in this page which couldn't be within one of the related pages JMWt (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Health and fitness. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infant nutrition and then initiate a discussion to swap titles. This page used to redirect to Breastfeeding, which is inappropriate. I changed it from a redirect to a stub as I wasn't aware that the Infant nutrition page existed. I agree with the nominator that Infant nutrition is much better. However, there is a lot more to infant feeding than nutrition, e.g., books have been written on how to introduce solids in a way that encourages the baby develop motor skills and good eating habits. Ideally, the content of what's currently in Infant nutrition would be under a title that allows for expansion into these other aspects of feeding. I'm happy to initiate the retitling discussion if nobody beats me to it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that sounds like a plan. I don't have an opinion as to which title to use, just thought it redundant to have two on the same subject. Happy to withdraw this AfD if this helps. JMWt (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to infant nutrition as the two pages are currently WP:REDUNDANT per User:Clayoquot’s argument. No preference regarding a title swap. Frank Anchor 14:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. I sort of think that "infant feeding" and "infant nutrition" are two distinct but heavily overlapping topics, but don't know enough about the topic to say how the article should handle them. I'd support a re-titling discussion. Blue Edits (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to infant nutrition or Breastfeeding due to the topic already covered in these two articles

I strongly oppose a redirect to breastfeeding because that is just a single method of infant feeding (it would be the equivalent of redirecting “soft drink” to “Coca-Cola”). Infant nutrition is a much more inclusive topic and a better redirect target. Frank Anchor 13:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Hail[edit]

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

Non-notable WWE wrestler. Article contains only two primary references, one is from the WWE, and the other is just a database profile. Per NSPORT, wrestlers are classified as entertainers and not sportspeople. This WWE wrestler has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, TV shows, performances, or productions. Nor has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. There is also no significant coverage in any reliable, secondary sources. All sourcing I can find is linked directly to the sport of wrestling and routine in nature. There is no mention of this subject in any media not linked to her time at the WWE, and as wrestling is not a recognised sport for notability purposes, she fails both the applicable WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, and the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wrestling, and Pennsylvania. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even were she considered a sportsperson, she'd have to pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See comments below by nominator. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaimani Public Library[edit]

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

Public library of no notability. Article lacks even the context to place it in Iraq, makes no claim whatsoever of any notability. Building is not notable per WP:NBUILDING; fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Iraq. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources. I found these via our friends at wikipedia Sorani. 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 are reasonable length news articles about the library, the book collection and history. The ckb.wiki also cites various offline books about the library. It's a city of nearly 900k people - wouldn't it be more surprising if their public library wasn't notable? In my country there's a fairly major wiki page on libraries in cities that size (and likely some for places a lot smaller). I say keep in solidarity with our Kurdish Sorani WP friends. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources given above, I'm good with GNG having been met. They seem like RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree & Withdraw nomination. Shame they - and the information they contain - couldn't have been in the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify (non-admin closure). Since there are available sources (non-English). The page was !voted to be draftified until it is ready for mainspace. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winter wind (novel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK - article sourced to Goodreads, author website, booksales website and a download site. Novelist is a redlink, claims that the book represents the "serious emergence of a mature artistic novel" in Algeria are frankly ludicrous. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and Algeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Happy to change to draftify to aid in building consensus. No harm in drafting, allowing more time for sources if some say they are out there. ~~Delete~~ - Unless someone who can read arabic is able to locate proper sourcing there simply is nothing out there to warrant inclusion. I google translated the sources within and the nominator is correct in their assessments. Without significant coverage in reliable sources this needs to be deleted. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this suggestion that sources in non-English languages don't exist and can't be used for notability. The fact is that this novel is widely taught and studied in Algerian universities as shown by the number of academic articles written about it 1 (note: in Arabic. But if you copy the Arabic name of the novel and paste into Google scholar you'll find them too. Then use translate to see that they are, indeed, about this novel). JMWt (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness there are transliteration and spelling issues with the page which make finding sources more difficult. It appears that the standard spelling of the authors name in English is not as it appears on en.wiki and scholars in Arabic commonly trabslate the title of the novel as 'Wind of the South', see this journal article with a summary in English 2. Also this journal article in English has more details. It says that it was the first Algerian Arabic novel and was made into a film - Le Vent du Sud JMWt (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt there’s no suggestion from me that non English sources cannot be used to show notability. I’m saying that I can’t see any in English, and so unless someone who can read Arabic finds some and let’s us know about them we can only delete (or draft). MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to appear rude, but we certainly can't delete pages just because we don't have someone to hand who reads Arabic. If Mccapra had not seen this discussion (and I also accept with thanks his offer to work on a draft), you were suggesting that a WP page about significant and important part of another culture's literary heritage should be deleted. That's just not right. JMWt (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the current article is a (machine?) translation of an ar.wiki article. The sourcing is rubbish but a quick search satisfies me there are sufficient RIS to demonstrate notability. There is also an awful lot of editing to do to get the article into some sensible shape. I am very busy at the moment so may not be able to work on this within the next seven days. If it’s draftified I’ll undertake to work on it when I have more time. Mccapra (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify That's a very generous offer and I'll gladly see this AfD closed as per Mccapra's suggestion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Mccapra.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. We can't delete non-English articles just because we can't read the sources, but it does seem like the article needs work. Lijil (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Voice (Australian season 11). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Sosene[edit]

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

Finalist on The Voice Australia's eleventh season, she did not win. No other case for notability exists at this time. Fails WP:GNG; WP:SINGER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of ongoing achievement once the TV talent show was over. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I find are tabloid type stories, nothing beyond the tv show, nothing for RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are many Google search results, but they are not significant enough to establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice (Australian season 11). I could not find evidence of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources, but I think a redirect is more beneficial for readers than an outright deletion since a suitable redirect target already exists. And to not get nitpick-y, but the fact that she did not win does not really impact her notability as there are articles on similar contestants who did not win. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoba47 as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice article per Aoba47. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoba47. Cabrils (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadayuki Hayashi[edit]

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

"Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable" and this Japanese diplomat and civil servant does not pass WP:GNG on his own merits. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House of Orange-Nassau with the option of merging any viable content. The issues with the article appear to be that its title, and possibly framing, do not reflect historical reality. This is a valid argument, but is different than saying that the content does not belong on Wikipedia. Multiple users have suggested that a merger would be acceptable (even if they did not indicate this preference as a bolded !vote), and this argument has consensus. I don't see the purpose in draftification when the intent is to have the content at a different title; also, if we are exploring any form of merger, outright deletion isn't appropriate from the perspective of attribution. Some editors discussed reframing this article as one about the possessions of the House of Orange; this did not gain consensus, but nothing in this discussion precludes a future spinoff so long as the issues with the title and framing are addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Orange-Nassau[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH. Apart from the fact that this article has been WP:UNSOURCED ever since its creation in February 2010, there are virtually no RS that attest the historical existence of this state.

Strictly speaking, 'Orange-Nassau' or 'Nassau-Orange' only refers to the House of Orange-Nassau as a family, not to any state. This so-called 'Principality of Orange-Nassau' did not exist as a unified political-territorial-administrative state. Rather, it's a sum of all the House of Orange-Nassau's (or rather: Nassau-Die(t)z's) possessions in 18th-century Germany: the counties of Nassau-Dillenburg, Nassau-Siegen, Nassau-Dietz, Nassau-Hadamar, and a few possessions shared with other houses/the Electorate of Trier. It didn't go beyond a personal union; compare how the Crown of Aragon and Crown of Castile were just a personal union until the Nueva Planta decrees forged them into the Kingdom of Spain; such a forging never happened to these German possessions of Orange-Nassau.
Nor did it have am identifiable single capital. With poor support, three different cities are alleged to have been the 'capital' of this alleged 'Principality of Orange-Nassau': Dillenburg, Die(t)z and Den Haag (The Hague). (I joked that as a compromise we could make it 'Dillentzburg Haag' to make everybody happy). The article currently mentions 'Diez', but there is no reason to presume that Diez (Dietz) was its capital just because the ruling branch of the House of Orange had been Nassau-Dietz ever since 1702. A rare possible RS, a passing remark by Dutch emeritus history professor Simon Groenveld, first states that the capital of this so-called Fürstentum Nassau-Oranien was at Dillenburg, then at The Hague. Although he is correct that a "Hoogduits Hofdepartement" existed in The Hague as a centre of joint administration of these German possessions from 1742 to 1795, this didn't lead to a unified political structure. (It would also have been strange if The Hague, located in the Dutch Republic's county of Holland, functioned as the 'capital' of these German possessions 300 kilometres away).
The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna of 9 June 1815, articles 67, 70 and 71 (English, French), still referred to 4 separate possessions (Dillenburg, Dietz, Siegen and Hadamar) of the House of Nassau-Orange (67: Luxembourg, serving as a compensation for the principalities of Nassau Dillenburg, Siegen, Hadamar and Dietz; 70: the sovereign possessions which the house of Nassau-Orange held in Germany, namely, the principalities of Dillenburg, Dietz, Siegen, and Hadamar; 71: the four principalities of Orange Nassau) rather than one unified principality (with a single capital).
Finally, the map in the infobox File:Nassau-Oranien-map.png is self-made, cites no sources and can therefore be considered to violate WP:OR.
Therefore, claiming that these separate possessions constituted a single unified principality violates WP:SYNTH. Dutch Wikipedia deleted the Dutch equivalent page "Vorstendom Nassau-Orange" on 14 October 2020 for this reason; English Wikipedia should follow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pause for further research. I agree that Oranien-Nassau usually refers to the family and it may well be true that the Principality was not a single state with a central administration and capital. Nevertheless, it appears in the literature and may well, therefore, merit an article or perhaps a section at the House of Orange-Nassau article. For example, Brockhaus (1894) tells us that "... The last son was ... John William Friso, who had been the Prince of Orange since William III's death and who named his principality Orange-Nassau..." [8] and there appear to be documents relating to the Fürstentum Oranien-Nassau in the Münster State Archives.[9] There are further documents under the heading of Principality of Oranien-Nassau at the NRW and Hessian State Archives. There is an online article entitled Principality of Nassau-Diez / Nassau-Orange and so on. Perhaps the article goes too far in implying it was a unified state, but it is clearly an accepted term for some sort of political entity under the House of Nassau-Orange otherwise there wouldn't be state archives related to it, which appear to be frequently referred to in the literature. Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that there are some sources which use the term. That neither necessarily means that they're reliable, nor that they're relevant. The greatest confusion is with the Principality of Nassau-Orange-Fulda, a state that did exist from 1802 to 1806 and carried various names, including 'Nassau-Orange-Fulda', 'Nassau-Orange', 'Orange-Nassau', 'Fulda and Corvey', or just 'Fulda'. The NRW and Hessian state archives clearly refer to Fulda. hoeckmann.de sort of lumps them all together, claiming 'Seit 1747 residieren die Fürsten von Nassau in Den Haag und die Linie nennt sich Fürsten von Nassau-Oranien', contradicting Brockhaus who claims John William Friso was the first to 'name his principality Orange-Nassau' 'since William III's death' [in 1702]. If Groenveld is to be believed, the establishment of the Hofdepartement in 1742 was the start of the 'Principality of Orange-Nassau'. Not only do we now have three different alleged capitals, but also three different alleged founding dates.

That's why I'm cautious, and do not trust just any source saying something. The sources you just brought up are, unfortunately, all flawed in one way or another for the purpose of proving the historicity of the so-called 'Principality of Orange-Nassau'. Besides, people in the Ancien Régime pretended lots of titles without actually owning the lands associated to them, or those lands being administratively unified (as said, you can call the Habsburg domains in Iberia before 1707 'the Kingdom of Spain' if you really want, but legally it didn't exist yet). E.g. Johann VI, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg kept calling himself 'Count of Katzenelnbogen', even though his father had already lost the War of the Katzenelnbogen Succession (1500–1557) and had to renounce Katzenelnbogen. If some 18th-century prince of Orange who also happens to be the count of some subdivision(s) of Nassau starts pretending the title 'Prince of Nassau-Orange', that has no legally binding force if it's not recognised by a superior authority (Wikipedically speaking, it's WP:SELFPUB). This is why I quote the 1815 Treaty of Vienna, which is arguably one of the highest-ranking treaties in international law of this era. It regards these Nassau territories as separate possessions, enumerates them as 'four', and names all four twice. We'll need very good reasons to disregard those stipulations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To cite another high-ranking treaty: The Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 25 February 1803: Hauptschluß der außerordentlichen Reichsdeputation vom 25. Februar 1803. If it really existed '1702–1806, 1813–1815', as the article claims, we should find it in this treaty. But it never mentions a state called 'Nassau-Oranien' or 'Oranien-Nassau' (it only mentions the word 'oranien' in 'Oranienhof'). There is no mention of the Prince of Orange, only 'Dem Fürsten von Nassau-Dillenburg, zur Entschädigung für die Statthalterschaft, und seine Domänen in Holland und Belgien: die Bisthümer Fulda und Corvey...' in short, this is about the recognition of the 1802 creation of the Principality of Fulda and Corvey. The only mentions of Nassau are 'Nassau-Hadamar, Nassau-Dillenburg, Nassau-Weilburg, Nassau-Usingen'. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 23/4 May 1802 treaty between France and William V (with Prussia as guarantor) mentions 'His highness the prince of Nassau-Orange-Dillenburg-Dietz', another phrase that seems to be an ad hoc jumbling together of titles. However, the fact that this term is used interchangeable with the term 'house of Nassau-Orange-Dillenburg-Dietz' suggests that this is a family name, not a state name. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion for "a section at the House of Orange-Nassau article" seems like a good solution. That article is currently focusing on the stadtholderate and doesn't really mention the German possessions, but this dynasty is almost the only factor grouping them together. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there scope for an article about the "Territories of Orange-Nassau in the Holy Roman Empire" or similar? If they were all administered in a similar way then an overview article sounds useful. The article House of Orange-Nassau seems very Netherlands-focused, and I don't know how these territories would fit within that article or what WP:DUE weight their coverage might have within the overall story of the House. Wherever it is merged/rewritten, it would need substantial rewriting based on the comments above. CMD (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As well as being Staatholders of most of the Dutch United Provinces, the Princes of Orange (a polity in southern France) had territories in Germany as Counts of Nassau. It is perfectly legitimate to have an article on these territories, unless someone can show that there is an appropriate merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but then the current title would still be misleading; it should rather say something like 'principalities/possessions of Orange-Nassau in Germany'. But I think Bermicourt's suggestion to merge that information into the article House of Orange-Nassau is far more preferable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Bermicourt. There currently is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV and its not clear that the article in its current form is verifiably true/accurate. As such I oppose keeping the article in main space. It's possible that there is an article here, and it's possible there isn't. I suggest we give time for research and modification in draft space. It may be an article develops, or that parts of the article become sourced and included elsewhere in other existing articles as mentioned above. Regardless, all of that takes research and time and editorial decision making which shouldn't be held under the gun of an AFD deletion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom's main argument for deletion is that this state never existed as a legal entity. I don't think anyone is arguing it was, however, that is not a deletion criterion. The term is used in numerous sources including historically archived documents, some are focussed on Orange-Nassau-Fulda, others aren't. The point is that the term and the concept existed and Wikipedia's job is to explain that, not ignore it. Readers who come across the term "Principality of Orange-Nassau" online or in the literature or any one of the German state archives should reasonably expect an encyclopaedic entry on it. Of course, as suggested before, that may not require a separate article. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily opposed to a separate article, but certainly the current title is misleading as it claims or implies political/administrative unity where there is none. If we are in favour of a separate article, its title should say something like 'principalities/possessions of Orange-Nassau in Germany' (which may still be OR, but far less misleading). But I think your suggestion to merge all this information into the article House of Orange-Nassau is far more preferable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was mildly aghast to find Googling this gets the usual first result for WP - but as per the nominator's extensive (and my searching backed them up) research, the actual Principality of Orange-Nassau never existed as a political entity under that title. Therefore this article is indeed SYNTH/OR (and, devastatingly, totally unsourced for some 12 years of its miserable existence). We have Principality of Orange as an article and that is perfectly proper. We also have House of Orange-Nassau and that is also perfectly proper. This, however, needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing, not least because we have County of Nassau and only a selection of articles on its divisions. It would not seem unusual to me if the personal union of all the counties of Nassau in the hands of a titular Prince of Orange were commonly referred to as the principality of Orange-Nassau. The Historisches Lexikon der Deutschen Länder has an article "Nassau-Oranien (Fürsten)". Srnec (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there were not recognised as such in the 1815 Treaty of Vienna, which regarded them as 4 separate entities ruled by the same dynasty. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decided to Keep given the recent improvements to the article by a team of editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mbali Dhlamini[edit]

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

South African artist, article is a CV, no evidence of notability per WP:ARTIST - "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors OR the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique OR the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Also fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and South Africa. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete few mentions as an artist (name drop in the New York Times among others) but nothing in Getty ULAN, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Photography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:SIGCOV. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON; this bio does indicate some upcoming projects which may be covered in RS at a future date.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I removed the uncited CV material and added inclusion in the Venice Biennale and exhibition at the Washington Printmakers Gallery. I think that might fulfill significant exhibitions. She has won a residency at the Embassy of Foreign Artists and won an award from Javett Art Centre. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:ARTIST based on the exhibitions and recognition mentioned by WomenArtistUpdates above. I added another source about her work being included in the JPMorgan Chase Art Collection. TJMSmith (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~~Delete~~ - I can't verify that she was actually in the Venice Biennale. I searched for her name in the Biennale records but it was not included. I also could not find her in any of the official "collateral" exhibitions. It seems that she was in a concurrent show during the same time as the Biennale. These shows usually do not have the same rigorous curatorial process as the Biennial itself. If someone can find evidence she was in fact in the VB, I may change my !vote. At this time it is TOOSOON for this emerging artist; does not meet GNG or NARTIST at this time; maybe in a few years. Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article had said that she won an award from the Javett Art Center at the University, this isn't accurate. The source states that the award was given to the Preempt Group Collective, which is facilitated by her and by Phumulani Ntuli. ~~Also, I was unable to verify the JPMorgan Chase Art Collection - was anyone else able to read the source behind the paywall?~~ Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link [10] via the Wikipedia Library. TJMSmith (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my !vote to Weak K**p from d*lete. I found another notable corporate collection in addition to JPMorgan Chase, the Mercedes-Benz Art Collection. While these are not museum collections, they are important private corporate collections -- I think this puts her over the bar and the article should be kept and continue to be improved. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements to the article and apologies for my mis-reading, and then adding the erroneous info that she participated in the Venice Biennale. Rookie mistake :( WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, I love the team effort happening here! Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per improvements made during the nomination discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Good to see a rational discussion Victuallers (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driggu[edit]

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

Brazilian cartoonist, writer, composer, visual artist. Article sourced in the main to wiki-style sites and owned media, subject fails WP:GNG; WP:ARTIST; WP:AUTHOR - no critical record or enduring impact on any of the creative endeavours the article credits them with. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Brazil. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Moniiquedecastro (talk) ) 07:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Welcome, the entry does not need to be deleted, as it was with being expanding until an editor removes it, ask me to reconsider because I'm already working on this entry correctly, within all the requirements is criteria that Wikipedia requires.[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. No evidence that the subject meets any of our notability criteria. A WP:BEFORE search on my part yielded zero independent sources with significant coverage. Most of the sources in the article are self published and lack independence, or are passing mentions.4meter4 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. For me, the entry will continue, because the article has governmental sources, independent, only those who don't want to see it. There are links to news portals, but the ones that stand out are the links to the Brazilian government websites, not all artists or professionals have a page at (mapas.cultura.gov.br), so this article is totally remarkable. Once you accept, you prefer to delete, and the entry is still expanding, as I work on it, with work on the article Erika Hilton. .Moniiquedecastro (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- mapas.cultura.gov.br is an artist portal that anyone can edit. It is a self publishing platform with no editorial oversight.4meter4 (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST; no significant coverage outside of a few mentions that the art exists. Most of the cited sources are self-published (e.g. on Medium and mapas.cultura.gov.br) or extremely minimal database entries. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caio Sael, which appears to have been a separate AfD for a page on the same subject. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. WP:TOO SOON and lacks reliable sourcing. I am not finding any good sources or evidence of notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Third Perso-Turkic War. If you would prefer a different redirect targets, such as Chorpan Tarkhan, please either start a discussion on the article talk page or take it to WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic invasion of Armenia (628)[edit]

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

I am nominating this for deletion as highly dubious and unlikely to be accurate. The first warning sign is the “general” reference provided. This is a Google books link to some kind of treatise on musical theory. The creating editor ran a Google search and dumped whatever came up into the article apparently without noticing that what they’d found was completely unrelated to the article topic. That tells me something about regard for sources. Other than that we have a bunch of offline sources (1-5 are the same work). Lastly all the sources I can find date the invasion of Armenia to 630, not 628. Indeed we already have a longstanding article, Chorpan Tarkhan, that covers all this material, that gives the date as 630. I think this article should be deleted as unreliable, or at best redirected to Chorpan Tarkhan as an alternative to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect (see below). Agreed that the cited sources are essentially useless without ISBNs or links (who knows what translation, printing, etc is being used here). The History of the Caucasian Albanians is also a tenth century text; though there are current translations I'm finding it extremely hard to find a copy. The best I've got is a text dump on archive.org ([11]) and it references the year 628 only eight times, none of which provide it as the date for the invasion of Armenia; the closest states this:

'In the 38th year of Xosrov', i.e. 628, the Khazars sack Partaw and besiege Tiflis; at the approach of the Persian army Heraclius tells the Khazars to withdraw and to return the following year, i.e. 629

Meanwhile, the info on Chorpan Tarkhan is also uncited, though there are two general references. I was able to find Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (ISBN 9789004294486), which references 630 on page 61 ([12]). I also can't find any sources which cover the size of the relative forces or really any details at all. I'm not sure this is enough evidence to convince me the information in the article is definitely false, but it's far from enough to convince me it's accurate, and the general lack of information makes me question notability. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add though that the years alone aren't that suspicious to me. It's not unlikely for different sources to give different years and for the exact timeframe for something like this to be vague. The Sasanian calendar used at that time differs pretty heavily from modern ones, and it's not unreasonable different scholars would interpret things like "the 38th year of Xosrov" as referring to slightly different years. And weirdly, that music theory text comes up fourth searching Google Books for "Chorpan Tarkhan;" that might just be an attempt by the editor to include an online source if their sources are purely offline. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Srnec below, changing to Redirect to Third Perso-Turkic War. None of my rationale has changed, and the battle itself seems to lack notability, but it seems reliable that it happened and is a part of the war in question. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the year is in question, maybe rename to Turkic invasion of Armenia and redirect? We don't have any other pages with that name, so disambiguating by year isn't necessary in the first place. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will preface this with a (true) claim to utter ignorance on this topic. I don't really know what I'm looking at. That said, there seem to be sources that support the position in the article as it stands. This one seems to tell a similar story albeit dating to 627. I have also found a master's thesis which appears to point to this source (which frustratingly I can't look inside) D. Christian, A History of Russia, Central Asia andMongolia: Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire, Vol.Α. the sourcing is thin but it might be a thing, particularly in Armenia/Armenian where maybe the history of the period looks different to those who focus elsewhere. I think I'm going to reserve judgment until someone with better knowledge and historical skills than me chimes in. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of a number of highly problematic pages that follow the same MO - terrible referencing/sourcing that is as obfuscatory as possible, SYNTH/OR to create 'battles' that are, as the nominator says, deeply dubious. This example here - also currently at AfD is typical. Personally I'd nuke the lot until an editor can come along and create properly sourced, verifiable articles on historical events that actually existed and upon which respected historians have conferred the title 'battle'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in line with the arguments put forward above by Dylnuge. The nominator's concern regarding the year is of secondary importance here, we can treat this as a general discussion of notability regarding this invasion, regardless of the exact year. I had a look around for both English and Turkish-language sources, and indeed, there is nothing more regarding this conflict than passing mentions in reputable sources, and as such I don't believe the topic clears WP:GNG. --GGT (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Third Perso-Turkic War. The History of the Caucasian Albanians—no text dump!—is available here. –Srnec (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! Briefly looking at the area near-ish the cited pages I'm finding a reference to this battle but nothing about the size of the forces in absolute numbers, so suspect that's unsupported by citation. Still seems to lack notability for its own page, but I support a redirect as a good alternative to outright deleting. Changing my !vote. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Plaskie[edit]

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

Belgian volleyball player, fails WP:GNG; WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage, enduring record, evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Belgium. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As sources have been found and the article basically rewritten since the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalita Iyer[edit]

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

Her books and other journalistic articles; are not yet regarded noteworthy or considered significant. RPSkokie (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: There was a misunderstanding on my part about the notability of the author, and I am sorry about it. RPSkokie (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and India. RPSkokie (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not my favourite nomination, I have to say, but I would broadly agree that a writer/journalist doing writing/journalism doesn't get us past WP:GNG. Sourcing to blogs and the writer's own work doesn't help - and there's not enough coverage generated on the books to make them notable works (and therefore to make the subject a notable author). Search shows a prolific writer/freelance (MoneyControl, Quint, Quartz, Mint - she's contributed to any number of Indian titles) but that ain't notability either - journalists journalist. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb correct. Journalists' journalist circle = a mutual back-scratching group. So reviews originating from a such group should be taken with a pinch of salt. RPSkokie (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her work did not get uniformly positive reviews, and she was the managing editor of Filmfare magazine when she began publishing books. Her other journalism work does not seem sufficient to undermine the reviews without an actual reason to doubt independence, such as a conflict-of-interest. Beccaynr (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr checked. your's a valid point. RPSkokie (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. You can find lots of stuff she's written, but nothing about her. There seems to be a cosmetics chemist in the USA with the same/similar name, so you get hits for both individuals. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR - she has written multiple books with multiple reviews, e.g. Queen of Hearts: FirstPost, Deccan Herald, Hindustan Times (article about book and author: Indian Express); The Whole Shebang: Sticky Bits of Being a Woman: Scroll.in, The Hindu, The Print, Verve (capsule); I’m Pregnant, Not Terminally Ill, You Idiot!: Hindustan Times, Indian Express, New Indian Express. The article can be expanded and revised to incorporate additional sources and more clearly reflect her notability. There is also brief coverage of her blog in the Hindu. Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC) source added Beccaynr (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC) sources added Beccaynr (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC), sources added Beccaynr (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have revised/expanded the article. Courtesy pings: @RPSkokie:, @Alexandermcnabb:, @Oaktree b:. Beccaynr (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment none of these sources are about her. She's barely mentioned in most of them; the subject of each article is about a different topic, not about her. Nothing we can use. A blog post isn't a RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple reviews of her multiple books in news outlets are about her, because they are about her work, as an author, which is sufficient to show notability per the WP:AUTHOR#3 notability guideline. Two of her books also happen to be memoir-style, and the reviews are also "about her", to the extent that WP:BASIC support is needed in addition to what is typically sufficient for authors of multiple notable works that are the primary subject of multiple reviews. The reviews are secondary coverage of her work, which supports her encyclopedic notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 'keep' reasoning from the recent Rimi B. Chatterjee AfD (an author of multiple works with multiple reviews in news outlets) seems to apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Thanks for the edits. But I am still uncertain about this author's notability. My situation was very analogous while evaluating Ed Douglas, the author of Himalaya: A Human History, and Amrita Jash, the author of The Concept of Active Defence in China's Military Strategy. The books they have authored have been validated as per WP:NBOOKS, but I could not locate any pertinent material written about them. So, it seems this discussion is becoming very much open-ended and I have no problem with that at all because there is a fundamental misconception about how WP:AUTHOR is applied. Looking forward to gaining some insight from this. RPSkokie (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When an author only has one notable work that is not well-known or significant, I tend to favor creating a book article, unless there is additional support for notability (e.g. the recent Srutimala Duara Afd), but when an author has written multiple notable works (e.g. the recent Yasmin Seale Afd), the secondary coverage of multiple works supports the notability of the author, because this is a collective body of work, per WP:AUTHOR#3. For this subject, reviews and other sources include information about her personal life and career and help develop the article, but WP:AUTHOR does not require personal information, similar to how sportspeople, politicians, academics, and entertainers do not need trivial information irrelevant to their notability to be included in their article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple reviews of multiple books listed above and now incorporated into the article demonstrate a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. Re "I could not locate any pertinent material written about them": this is deliberately obtuse. Coverage of an author's books is coverage about them, just like coverage of an athlete's sporting accomplishments or coverage of a politician's election victories is coverage about them. What do you expect coverage of an author to look like? The only potential issue for notability of authors through published reviews is WP:BIO1E in cases where there is only one reviewed work, but that is irrelevant for this author because we have multiple reviewed works. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to reviews of multiple works, as explained by Beccaynr above, to warrant a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. I note this nomination has been withdrawn, but it can't be speedy kept as there are some delete !votes. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Multiple reviews in reliable/respectable newspaper sources. Jahaza (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists. ✗plicit 04:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Conference of Seventh-day Adventists[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Glane23 disagreed with the redirection by Catfurball, so an AfD is needed to determine notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Catfurball. Found a couple of passing mentions on Google Books and that's about yer lot. Fails WP:GNG. If not redirect, delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists. Not enough sourced notability to warrant a standalone article. For the record, I also agree with the redirects as such of the other local conference titles. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter Gabriel discography. Anyone is free to restore the article once the album has received enough coverage. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I/O (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

At the very least, this is edging on WP:CRYSTAL. Current only sourcing on a release date [13] says album in 2022 (which has been misread as releasing in 2023; that date is referring to the tour) but given how late in the year we are that date feels less than certain. No recent sources have confirmed the name (American Songwriter calls it a "working title") and most of those sources are unreliable anyway. Redirect to Peter Gabriel discography; redirect is especially preferable given this could turn around at any time so it'll be good to preserve the page history in case it's needed. QuietHere (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree totally. I'd have been WP:BOLD and just redirected it but at least this way the redirect (if we all agree, natch) has consensus. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect works, or Merge. There are plenty of references there and this can be recreated when it isn't a CRYSTAL issue. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find multiple other recent references to a 2022 release date (Stereogum: [14], [15], NME: [16]), it seems to easily pass WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM (criteria 1). The article itself needs cleanup but there's enough content specific to this album to make me think it's not WP:CRYSTAL, which seems to mostly apply to cases where nothing but WP:OR or baseless speculation can be made. Other pages on anticipated and delayed upcoming albums exist (like Masochism (album)). I can see an argument for redirect but it seems like there's enough here to merit an article and it'd be better to clean-up the existing article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Gabriel discography. The first AfD for this album was way back in 2014, indicating how long Gabriel has been working on it, so I am very skeptical of the "coming soon" vibe of the present article until we get a REAL release date from the record company and other reliable sources. We don't even know the ultimate title of the album, indicating further that it is far away from reality. In the meantime, the development of the album has been a big factor in Gabriel's whereabouts for the past decade, but that can be described (more briefly) as history at his main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Gabriel discography for now. Still fails WP:FUTUREALBUM per nom. No news about its complete track listing, etc. SBKSPP (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Gabriel discography per arguments above (WP:FUTUREALBUM). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Elmaloglou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this 12 years ago which resulted in no consensus. I still feel he fails WP:ENT, for lacking multiple significant roles. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short running role in a long running soap is not WP:NACTOR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has multiple significant stage roles in notable productions of Burnt Piano and Gypsy Boy. Also appears in La Dispute. For their notability see below. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Piano

"Burnt Piano strikes a chord."

Daily Telegraph, 11 March 1999, 288 words, (English)

"Family Tackles Burning Issues"

Sydney Morning Herald , 12 March 1999, 622 words, (English)

"Jangling notes as Piano fails to ignite."

The Australian, 12 March 1999, 680 words, (English)

"Engrossing voyage around Godot."

Sunday Telegraph, 14 March 1999, 380 words, (English)

Gypsy Boy

"Wandering minstrel - Summer Live."

Daily Telegraph, 29 December 2000, 616 words, (English)

"January Is A Time For Fairytales And Gypsies"

Canberra Times, 1 January 2001, 491 words, (English)

"Caravan With Space For Ideas"

Sydney Morning Herald, 8 January 2001, 646 words, (English)

"Carpenter Crafts A Beauty"

Sun Herald, 14 January 2001, 465 words, (English)

La Dispute

Keep: Given what duffbeerforme has found, I think there's enough to meet the notability standards. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR per duffbeerforme.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by duffbeerforme. Moresdi (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuomas Kaukua[edit]

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

No coverage that's not just a WP:PASSINGMENTION, fails GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Finland. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finnish language sourcing is a lot of brief mentions in game reports (along the lines of "Kaukua scored...", with perhaps a one-sentence quote), with the most extensive piece I could find being this Yle Uutiset story. Might have scraped by with the old, now-removed, sports criteria, but I'm not seeing the prerequisite sourcing to establish notability for the presently used criteria. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. YLE source good but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article appears to fail WP:GNG without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Lagunez[edit]

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

Borderline speedyable advert; zero third-party reliable sources for WP:BIO, insufficient sourcing for WP:NACADEMIC. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Biology. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, he's influential? Delete for lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed this researcher is, please help edit accordingly:

See several links:

Petitions - Climate Emergency Declaration

[united-nations-we-live-climate-collapse-have-the-united-nations-declare-state-of-planetary-emergency Petition · Our Collapsed Climate - Have the United Nations declare State of Planetary Emergency · Change.org]

Male Changemakers In The Sustainable Living Community - Zero Waste Lifestyle System

Furthermore he is the leader of the @FrenteCivico an organization that has won the National Human Rights Award in Mexico.:

https://twitter.com/Frentecivico

(Over 100k posts on these subjects) 2806:104E:C:1B11:943:3CA0:4160:D036 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll want to review our WP:Reliable sources policy; none of those sources qualify towards notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need articles about him in reliable journals, newspapers, books, magazines or the like. Not things he's written or speeches he's made. A New York Times article about the gentleman would be a perfect example of what's needed for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources? I'd delete for lack of sense. But as we fail WP:GNG, I'd delete for that instead. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are definitely there but it would be best to add as references. OF COURSE it makes sense. Few topics are as important as environmental activism, or cancer and HIV research. Furthermore the proposal for a worldwide cooperative company will no doubt make a change in the world.

This article is a keeper. 2806:104E:C:1B11:943:3CA0:4160:D036 (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Equine-man (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; subject not notable and the article reads like self-promotion. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we should KEEP the article...allow me to explain. See below.. 2806:104E:C:1B11:943:3CA0:4160:D036 (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD. You should provide a rationale for your !vote. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those invited to the Techfest lectures are Nobel Prize winners and heads of state. This article speaks of notable activities. Yes, it's a Keep. 2806:104E:C:1B11:943:3CA0:4160:D036 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So provide articles that discuss them at length. "Because I say they are" isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this "influential" activist and scientist who's "greatest achievements of mankind and trigger a trillion dollar economy of healing biomedical procedures" is not yet notable per WP inclusion criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC. Netherzone (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. Kevin Hill[edit]

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

Earlier today I revision deleted a violation of our biographies of living persons policy on this article that was added just hours after it was accepted from draft. I was subsequently contacted by the subject, who requested deletion of the article. Even if he had not requested it, deletion is justified as he hardly seems notable. The only independent sources are reviews of a couple of his books – mostly just one book about Nietzsche and Kant, which probably owes the attention to these two very prominent philosophers rather than to its author. All the biographical content is bare bones career info from the websites of current and former employers. We have in the past deferred to deletion requests from marginally notable living people, and in this case I doubt it is even marginal. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I passed it at AfC based on the multiple reviews for their books (after I searched for them) but it could have gone the other way. The fact that the main author of the article added something after it was accepted that needed Revdelling sits uncomfortably with me, which, combined with the subject's request make me agree with delete and suggest that it be Speedy if possible. Gusfriend (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:NACADEMICS. Has one book that's cited but there is not a long publication history showing that they would pass WP:SNG. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching finds seven reviews of Nietzsche's Critiques (JSTOR 26342443, JSTOR 3700479, JSTOR 20717852, JSTOR 20130791, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00236.x, doi:10.1080/09608780410001676520, doi:10.1086/504627). I didn't find reviews for the other authored book. With only one book significantly reviewed, I would normally suggest a redirect to an article about the book, which could well be notable, rather than outright deletion. But in a case like this where it is already borderline (the number of reviews is good but for only one book), with BLP-attack content already attempted on the article and easily found online (note: new editors who link it here or post it here will find themselves blocked), and with what I can easily believe is a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE from the subject, I think deletion is the right outcome. Wikipedia is not and should not be a host for someone's vendetta against someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I previously declined its submission to AFC because it appeared to fail Wikipedia:NACADEMICS, and was subsequently surprised when it was passed. I can only speculate what the last edit was, but if it violates the WP:BLP policy around privacy, this would reinforce my delete vote. —Caorongjin 💬 07:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMICS, and even if it does, definitely a non-public figure, so I'm inclined to say if the subject is requesting deletion it's more than valid (see also WP:BIODEL). Beyond that, the user who created the AfC, User:LuizaSalome, states a conflict of interest on their user page and previously had a less ambiguous statement there—this feels suspiciously like someone who is WP:NOTHERE and is making this page for personal reasons such as spreading misinfo about the article subject. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 07:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be one book that is highly cited and multiply reviewed, but normally we require at least two. I often lean to keep in these cases, or at least rework to the notable book, but given the history and the content of the deleted edit, I'm satisfied that the motivation for creating this was as an attack page. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant wiki-notability guidelines would be those for authors and academics, which tend to overlap in those fields of academia which focus on book publications. The rule-of-thumb in this situation would typically be to look for multiple books that have received multiple (formally published) reviews apiece. That standard is not met, and so there's really nothing to counterbalance the request to delete. Whatever the complaints or allegations against him, and whether or not they are merited, we can't be a platform for them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under the new title as evolved during this AfD. Star Mississippi 13:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Edit: by "the new title" I meant to say that Death of.. what was kept, that consensus had evolved that her death was notable. Should this change further, that's a matter for editorial discussion and can be handled through normal channels. Star Mississippi 14:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minoo Majidi[edit]

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

A woman killed in the September 2022 Iranian protests. While tragic, her death isn't as notable as one like Mahsa Amini's. This article might be better as an entry in a list of protesters who were killed during the 2022 protests. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Iran. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely not notable. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that her daughters actions as detailed in the 'iconic imagery' section, give this article a level of notability. A way of improving it would be adding a free-use image that is being described. Marleeashton (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd argue otherwise. Her burial was a place of protest and her daughter's image has become a symbol in this movement. Various major media outlets have directly mentioned her name and circulated the image of her daughter. There are many faces to this movement, while Mahsa Amini remains the main face, she is not the only one as Iranian women are leading this fight forward and sacrificing their lives over it. Exhaustedgolsa (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Exhaustedgolsa: I think she would only be notable because of the one photo, which isn't enough to support a whole article about a person since photos go viral on the internet regularly. She being mentioned in news articles also wouldn't meet WP:SIGCOV as it's only a mention, not a article which is focused around her. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of people being killed, only few of them get their photos published on western media outlets. The photos of those killed don't go viral regularly, as we are speaking about the Middle East, not a meme or someone being killed in Switzerland. The fact that she is even mentioned anywhere, speaks volumes of her notability. Exhaustedgolsa (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I find are sources connected to the revolution. She's not notable otherwise. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT and move to Killing of Minoo Majidi - our standard of notability is not whether her death is as notable as the Death of Mahsa Amini, but whether sufficient sources exist. There is international coverage that provides context for her death and how she has also had an WP:EFFECT by becoming an icon in the ongoing protests, e.g. AFP, EL Pais, The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC (brief mention). The recent nature of the news, as well as the challenging news reporting environment also seems to favor keeping this article for now, per the WP:RAPID section of the WP:EVENT guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC) sources added to comment Beccaynr (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: The AFP source talks about her along with two other victims, which might be SIGCOV but I don't know if it's really enough to support an entire article, while The Guardian and BBC are very brief mentions. El Pais and The Telegraph are paywalled so I can't access those. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an event, we have biographical, context, and legacy information, covered internationally in diverse sources, so notability appears supported, particularly per WP:RAPID, which suggests reworking the article into an event article as an alternative to deletion.

The AFP source begins with the context of women's leadership in the protests, describes details related to Majidi's death and includes a description the "image that has gone viral on social media" posted by one of her daughters. The article is also titled "Hadis, Minoo and Ghazaleh: the women victims of Iran's crackdown", which seems to help emphasize the significance of Majidi in this report.
The El Pais article is titled "The faces of repression in Iran", and reports on four women, including Majidi, beginning with "Like Nika Shahkarami and Hadis Najafi, Minoo Majidi was not a rebel, just an ordinary Iranian woman", describes information provided by the Hengaw Organization for Human Rights about her death, and the "Iconic image of the daughter of Minoo Majidi" (this is a quote from a tweet included in the article), stating "The bleak image of this solemn but proud young woman has become yet another symbol of the pain suffered by women who live in a country where cutting one’s hair is a sign of grief and resistance." This is secondary coverage supporting the WP:EFFECT of the event.
The Guardian also notes and includes the viral social media image, after stating, "It is a movement that has been nurtured online, where Iranian and foreign celebrities tweet and hashtag their support, and powerful images carry protesters’ messages far beyond their own borders." This is further secondary coverage of the WP:EFFECT.
The Telegraph is reporting on the arrest of a protester who ate in a restaurant without a hijab, with the image going viral online, and notes the viral social media image of Majidi's daughter happening around the same time.
The BBC News report is a brief mention, but there is context, e.g. "Iran's Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) estimates 222 people have been killed in or after the widespread demonstrations sparked by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, 22, detained for allegedly breaking rules on headscarves", as well as the BBC description of their investigative methods to identify victims and the challenging news reporting environment.

It seems that the article could be further developed as an event article based on the available sources and the reasonable likelihood of further coverage, similar to other high-profile people who have been killed during the protests. Beccaynr (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"El Pais" is the only source that shows some notability to the event, as it has decent coverage. The rest either don't mention her at all, or mention her only in passing. The Telegraph is even confused about her name and that of daughter.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree regarding moving it to the Killing of Minoo Majidi and had already created the page because I accidentally published this page with her name alone. Exhaustedgolsa (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Beccaynr's argument is accurate, it should be moved to Killing of Minoo Majidi.
1) She is one of the first female victims of this movement in Iran and this, along with her age difference with most of the young protesters, drew attention and received a lot of coverage in the sources.
2) The famous photo of his daughter cutting her hair at her mother's grave has become the signature of this revolutionary movement, and like the photo of the tank man in Tiananmen Square, it has acted as a political charter. This photo has caused so many reactions and social impact that it can be considered a factor of notability alone. This article has a lot of room for expansion. Mahan (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you mentioned is irrelevant to whether the article about her death should be kept or not. Please read the guidelines in WP:N first. Coverage of her story is actually very limited compared to the deaths of other protestors, and she's mostly only mentioned by name with a picture. Doesn't look notable to me.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about the event and the consequences of death such as burial and reactions are part of the event of death. I don't agree with the argument of comparison with other articles, it is true that the incident of killing Nika Shakrami received extensive international coverage and Minoo Majidi remained at the level of extensive national coverage, but in my opinion this is enough to show notability. Mahan (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She has no notability on her own, which is why I moved the article to Death of Minoo Majidi. The notability of her death is also very weak, at least based on English sources. No major English-speaking (or for that matter, French or German-speaking) news source has covered her death with any modicum of significance, and even Iran Wire, only mentions her name with a list of other victims. If Persian speakers can confirm that her death was covered much more extensively in Persian-speaking sources (on par with Nika Shakarami for instance), with several examples of such sources, I'm willing to change my vote.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By the way, somebody also created Killing of Minoo Majidi. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the two articles should be merged or one of them simply deleted.-- Ideophagous (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New sources added. Some sources of the article belong to the Persian branch of international media such as VOA, BBC and Al Arabiya. In my opinion, the protests of the funeral ceremony and the symbolic reaction of his daughter have been covered to a considerable extent in Persian language sources. Mahan (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources such as Al Arabiya (and almost all the media of the Arab world except for Al Jazeera) are not considered reliable about what happens in Iran, considering the deep enmity between the Gulf countries and Iran: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, at least for state media. But in this case I think there is no dispute because the use of Al-Arabiya was only to refer to an image from the Corriere della Sera newspaper. Mahan (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not considered reliable by whom? The state that killed Minoo Majidi? Exhaustedgolsa (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the English Wikipedia. For example, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Arab News 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the new title at Death of Minoo Majidi. Passes WP:NEVENT per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to weak keep, based on coverage in El Pais and The Telegraph. The article must be merged with Killing of Minoo Majidi regardless.--Ideophagous (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple international mainstream media sources establish notability as Death of Minoo Majidi, e.g. as shown in detail by Beccaynr above. Boud (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Plus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Serbia. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Erotic[edit]

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

This just seems like an article about some pay-to-view porn channels offered by a media company. The pay-to-view porn itself is not notable. Either this should be deleted or merged in to the parent article about the actual media company. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, just a PPV porn provider. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly non-notable and certainly not up to the standards of WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pink Media Group Everyone is reminded here that a network's content does not disqualify it from an article (see The Erotic Network and Vivid TV (Europe)), though redirecting to its parent company is a valid WP:ATD due to lack of sources here. Nate • (chatter) 22:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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