Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 07	October 09 >

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 merge to 2021–2022 Iranian protests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 University of Sharif protests crackdown[edit]

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

One of many civil disturbances in Iran. No fatalities and no indication of lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Police, and Iran. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2021–2022 Iranian protests. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a media hype. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2021–2022 Iranian protests. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Per WP:NOTNEWS, this event does not need a standalone article but it could well be discussed in the article on the protests. WJ94 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2021–2022 Iranian protests.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent James (Streamer)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The three independent sources only mention him briefly; two of them are about Nicholas Fuentes and mention James only in passing. A brief search for sources doesn't turn up much else that's promising: a Vice and Propublica article are about the best of it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Internet, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources do not meet WP:BASIC due to a lack of significant coverage. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I cited the sources well. If he’s not notable, I’ll find proof otherwise. Admiral Farmer James has made headlines in left-wing media, even getting a team-up with Mike Lindell. https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/88qm4v/mike-lindell-mypillow-vincent-james

Furthermore, with calls of a sitting State Senator for him to run for office, and getting his website promoted by a sitting Congressman, I for one say this article stays. https://www.mediamatters.org/white-nationalism/arizona-state-sen-wendy-rogers-calls-holocaust-denier-vincent-james-foxx-run https://www.mediamatters.org/white-nationalism/rep-paul-gosar-has-been-promoting-white-nationalist-site-warns-readers-they-are

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sourced to unreliable self published websites that lack sufficient editorial oversight to be used as sources for verification.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used plenty of sources wether National or local. Most of the Telegram posts were used to show what Mr. James was saying, or even Mrs. Rogers endorsing him. Admiral_Farmer (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:E7B0:29A3:A850:B055:19C7 (talk) 17:35, 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) 4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Hughes-Warrington[edit]

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

A review of the sources shows Hughes-Warrington doesn't seem to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or GNG. Majority of RS found through google focus on criticism over her school's handling of its music department where she was the spokesperson. They don't seem to show significant coverage of her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. TJMSmith (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable passes of WP:Prof and WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I found and added to the article 11 published reviews of 5 books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. Unusually for someone in humanities, her citation record also shows heavy-enough citation counts for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely meets WP:AUTHOR based on the number of reviews I found and per David Eppstein. Skynxnex (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I also did a rapid RS check and she also received some decent coverage, possibly passing WP:BASIC: the Australian, the Canberra Times. Pilaz (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant BLPN thread that I should have posted earlier.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per David Eppstein, seems to meet both WP:PROF & AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:Prof and WP:Author. Alex-h (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passes WP:AUTHOR , WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per David Eppstein. Passes WP: AUTHOR. Fifthapril (talk) 07:47, 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!} 22:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escunited[edit]

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

Non-notable website dedicated to Eurovision. The sources are either unreliable (IMDb, the website itself) or don't provide significant coverage of the website itself. Pichpich (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Websites, and Europe. Skynxnex (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain further how it's "non-notable" and the sources that are referred at are unreliable. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found this through the recommendation for edits. It does appear that there's some references back to the site's content available in scholarly articles. I found them through the link above. But I'm unsure if these would assist.

Tthere does appear to be some level of significance compared to a small blog/something similar that has no in-text references.

Also re: the conflict of interest, was not aware the this could Crete an issue. I will therefore discontinue edits on this article. Apologies for confusion. I appear to have been logged in under my phone account to make this comment. Cjt199677 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:SIGCOV. I could find no independent significant coverage of this website; although I did see multiple academic publications from reliable publishers like Oxford University Press using this website to source content in their books. That said, we can't build an article about the website with only primary sources per WP:No original research.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Razel Street[edit]

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

In my opinion, this article failed WP:NTSR. Google search finds nothing. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google turned up zero for me too. TH1980 (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I don't think this article "Razel Street" should be deleted because according to me, it suits the purpose of a short description. However, I hope to add more details to it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akopoly (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NTSR and WP:V. Currently fails verification as the article's content is not supported by the one reference in the article. Nothing found in searches other than two passing mentions; All Africa 1 and All Africa 2. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG GoldMiner24 ^Talk 22:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have never been made to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG by a mile. Article creator doesn't seem to comprehend things like GNG and proper sourcing at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every street has notability. Fails WP:NTSR. NMasiha (talk) 12:30, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saravanan Arul[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILM and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Coverage is almost all trivial and small. All of the sources in the article just talk about a film he funded and stared in. Reviewed all the sources and almost all of them are short passing mentions of his film or him being made fun of online.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Right Rasta	Doesn't appear to be a news org	Site looks like a spam site, just lists infomation about Arul and is authored by admin	Arul is the only topic on the page	✘ No
India Posts English	Article reads like a promo, and authored by an AI	Does not appear to be any critical coverage or analysis	~ Article covers a film that Arul is in	✘ No
Times of India	Source is normally independent	~ Authored by a staff writer and sounds more promotional than critical	~ Article covers a film that Arul is in	~ Partial
India Glitz	Article reads like a promo	~ No author listed, reads like a promo	Short article about an upcoming movie	✘ No
Namaste India	Website appears to just be lists of people in India	No listed author or cited sources	Just a short couple paragraphs of facts about Arul	✘ No
India Herald	Article reads like a promo	No listed author or cited sources	Article covers a film that Arul is in	✘ No
India Herald	Article reads like a promo	~ Article talks about events that happened	~ Coverage of a promo for an upcoming film	✘ No
ABP Live	?	?	Just a collection of photos of Arul	✘ No
India Glitz	Article reads like a promo	~ No author listed, reads like a promo	Short article about an upcoming movie	✘ No
India Glitz	Article reads like a promo	~ No author listed, reads like a promo	Short article about an upcoming movie	✘ No
The Hindu	Source is considered independent	Author listed, review of film goes in depth	Movie review, not an in-depth interview of Arul	✘ No
Economic Times/India Times	Source is normally independnt	No author listed, only talks about the number of places a movie is being shown	Article is about a movie not Arul	✘ No
Hans Times	Article is a short listing of facts about Arul	No author listed, reads like a promo	Article is about Arul but the coverage is trivial in nature	✘ No
onmanorama	? Couldn't determine	Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact	~ Coverage is about Arul traveling to a state in India to promote his film	? Unknown
OTTPlay	Reads like a promo article	Short article about Arul's dream of being in movies	~ Coverage is trivial at best.	✘ No
onmanorama	? Couldn't determine	Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact	~ Coverage is about Arul traveling to a state in India to promote his film	? Unknown
OTTPlay	Reads like a promo article	Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact	~ Coverage is about Arul joining twitter	✘ No
News 18	~ Appears to be independent for non-entertainment news such as this article	~ Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact	Short article about how Arul was at an event promoting his movie	✘ No
Tollywood	Republication of a press release	Republication of a press release	~ Republication of a press release	✘ No
Times of India	Source is normally independent	~ Authored by a staff writer and sounds more promotional in nature	~ Article covers a film that Arul is in	~ Partial
Pink Villa	Republication of a press release	Republication of a press release	~ Republication of a press release	✘ No
Times of India	Republication of a press release	Republication of a press release	Republication of a press release	✘ No
Astro Ulagam	? Can not access	? Can not access	? Can not access	? Unknown
Kalakkal Cinema	Reads like a promo article, most of the website is the same	~ Authored by a staff writer and sounds more promotional in nature	Passing mention of Arul	✘ No
Mirchi9	Doesn't appear to be a reliable news or industry org. Reads more like a fancy blog.	No sources cited or analysis done. Authored by staff writer, maybe.	~ Article mentions that Arul is rich, was made fun of online, and a song in his film had 100 dancers. No really that's all this article says.	✘ No
Lehren	Republication of a press release	Republication of a press release	Republication of a press release	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Businesspeople. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent source table provided by Dr vulpes. In addition, article creator is a UPE who has now been blocked.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is typical of the work produced by User:Dheena.official, who has been blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. Several other articles written by this editor follow a similar format, being about an actor who has had a short undistinguished work history and including many citations to sources that fail to qualify for establishing notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and being created by a banned user. ZanciD (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Google search doesn't reveal very much. This fails GNG and WP:NBAND in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Duffbeerforme's sources that they mentioned in the first AfD might be significant but there's no proof and verification. Please can those sources be included in the article or at least produced in a way that the community reviews them. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this sources. I'm not able to show them to the Wikipedia community due to copy right. If some body wants the article I can send them by mail.

I'm not into music but for me all this sources are ok and they are from the main newspapers in Switzerland. So I think they will pass GNG.

I also found this article from Germany: https://fudder.de/ma-ana-aus-basel-einfach-mal-machen-als-band-prinzip--118470177.html

I tend to keep. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Malo95. I trust your judgement. I want some other editors to recheck the sources provided. I'd personally assume good faith as I do not know the language in which the sources are. Your reply has been helpful. If someone else says that they've checked the sources and found them okay, I'd happily withdraw this nomination. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the first afd for coverage to pass gng. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources in the first AFD. This should not have been re-nominated.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 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) 4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Tunisia national football team[edit]

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

It looks quite the same as previous versions of "Tunisia national football team", before I (copy)edited it. The history section is about the same length as it was in the main article's previous versions. It also has other sections from the main Tunisia team article. It's supposed to focus on the history of the team. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AfD is not cleanup. If there is this much to write about the team's history as evidenced by reliable sources, the topic is clearly notable and should have its own article, while the main Tunisia team article should include a shorter summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Sure, the article definitely needs work for copyediting, sourcing, and focus, and any copyvios must be addressed (Earwig doesn't report anything significant, but a deeper search may be necessary), but these concerns are not within the scope of AfD and not sufficient to justify deletion. A focused, decently-sourced article about the team's history is definitely possible to produce here with some work. An argument could be made for WP:TNT, but I don't believe the article's issues are insurmountable. ^Complex/_Rational 20:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Valid content fork - needs cleanup, not deletion. Giant Snowman 18:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely a valid WP:SPINOFF article. Frank Anchor 01:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely belongs on Wikipedia. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the main Tunisia football team article's history section should be trimmed a bit. This is certainly a valid fork. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination lacks merit. Danish Ranger (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:47, 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. It's a Weak Keep, but Keep it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Pruneau[edit]

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

High energy physicists can be very hard to evaluate in terms of citation count, because LHC papers can have literally thousands of authors, and high citation rates for those papers don't necessarily confer notability on author number seven hundred and twenty three. I don't think this guy meets any of the OTHER WP:NACADEMIC criteria, but I'm bringing it to AfD rather than PROD because I'd like to hear other opinions. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The large-collaboration papers don't give him independent notability as a member of their groups. Their citation counts show that the collaborations are notable but I don't think they contribute at all to Pruneau's notability. But we can still look at the remaining papers where he is first author. I found:
- "Methods for the study of particle production fluctuations" (1st of 3 authors; 291 citations)
- "Multiplicity fluctuations in Au+Au collisions..." (1st of 4 authors; 167 citations)
- "Transverse radial flow effects on two-and three-particle angular correlations" (1st of 3 authors; 70 citations)
- "New and improved phoswich detectors manufactured by a heat press technique" (1st of many authors; 34 citations)

This looks like a very weak case for WP:PROF#C1. I also found two published book reviews for his textbook Data Analysis Techniques for Physical Scientists, not enough for WP:AUTHOR by themselves, but strengthening the overall case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak keep with 3 reviews of their book. Gusfriend (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments made by David Eppstein and Gusfriend.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 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 merge to University of Tehran#Main entrance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Tehran main entrance[edit]

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

No reason why the university's entrance merits a standalone article. A paragraph in the university's article suffices Mooonswimmer 16:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Tehran#Main Entrance.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Tehran#Main Entrance per nom. There appears to be enough information to write about it in the latter article, but I'm not seeing much of a credible claim of significance that assures that this needs a separate article. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Tehran#Main entrance (with the correct capitalization) otherwise as proposed above. A work of art must be independently notable (i.e., just as notable even if it was out in a field somewhere) to merit an article, and this is not such a work. BD2412 T 05:49, 9 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. WP:SNOW delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness Street[edit]

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

In my opinion, failed WP:NTSR. Google search finds up nothing. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NTSR and currently fails WP:V as the article's content is not supported by the one reference. I found a lot of mentions of 'Guinness Street' but none seem to be about the one in Cameroon and all are trivial mentions anyway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure of WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without a doubt one of the worst articles I have ever seen. Not notable in any sense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:43, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gustimeus Aibesa[edit]

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

Struggling to find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Even an Indonesian source search failed to yield any significant coverage in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:13, 13 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 BGYO. RL0919 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gelo Rivera[edit]

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

Gelo Rivera is a member of BYGO, which is the subject of the vast majority of the coverage presented in this article - and not Rivera himself. The balance of sources are interviews and even a fashion shoot. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. I'd have redirected but for the 100% certainty that would be reverted. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Personal articles were created for all five members of BGYO. One, JL Toreliza, has already been redirected to the band because that dude has done nothing independently or outside of the band. ([2]) I think the same could be done for all the others and would probably be fairly uncontroversial. In addition to Gelo Rivera in this AfD, see also Akira Morishita, Mikki Claver, Nathaniel "Nate" Porcalla. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGYO. See comment above. Outside of the group, Rivera has gotten some gossip rag coverage of who his favorite singers are and such, but he is not independently notable outside the group and has done nothing significant on his own. Trivia like date of birth and hometown can be listed briefly at the group's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGYO: per Doomsdayers SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGYO per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGYO per above. Not notable on his own. Additionally, articles related to BGYO may be suffering with some fancruft and notability issues. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:59, 11 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.

Gian Piero Ventrone[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) • Huferpad talk 06:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lack of notability • Huferpad talk 11:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked yet but I don't think an athletic trainer who was at the best-ever Juventus, at the FIFA World Cup-winning Italy and at Tottenham could lack of notability. Dr Salvus 11:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shellwood please categorise it to: Football, Italy, Biography. Dr Salvus 12:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG easily, no question about it. Even ignoring the sources about his death, here's high-quality sources I found when searching three minutes: The Telegraph, Evening Standard, NY Times, the i, all independent with significant coverage. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - trainer at major football clubs and a World Cup winning national team suggests notability. Multiple reliable sources in UK and Italy. LenF54 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Huferpad, please use Twinkle to open an AFD. Dr Salvus 14:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has plenty of English-language coverage that now certainly asserts notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, extremely low effort nomination.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he only seems to be notable for dying.Spike 'em (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen by the multitude of sources posted above that were written before his death? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 20:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spike 'em, read the sources mentioned by DatGuy. Not enough for you? Read the news on him from 1 January 2000 to 5 October 2022 (the day before his death) here. Dr Salvus 21:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ridiculous nomination with no merit or even attempt at a rationale. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - odd nomination - article clearly meets GNG with references provided. In addition to the pre-death Italian articles, it's easy to find English-language articles, such as this. Perhaps User:Huferpad can withdraw this? Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I ask the next person who wants to vote keep to directly close this ridiculous nomination. The AfD also doesn't allow the article to be posted at WP:ITN. Dr Salvus 05:08, 11 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 per WP:SNOW. Clearly, consensus will not develop to delete this. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disco![edit]

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

Recording by US rapper Mike, fails WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG - tried redirecting to Mike article but reverted, so here we are. No chart placement, passing mentions in listicles, "multiple, non-trivial, published works" is not passed, neither is gold disc, notable award etc Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple third-party reliable sources that review the album in detail (HipHopDX, Pitchfork, Spin, Stereogum). The album has been included in multiple "Best Albums of 2021" year-end lists (NPR, Okayplayer, Paste, Pitchfork, PopMatters). The album appeared on the Billboard Top Current Album Sales chart. I believe the album meets the first criterion of WP:NALBUM ("The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it") and the second criterion of WP:NALBUM ("The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart"). 2400:4050:C222:B700:79E3:73B6:BE11:2482 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 2400:4050:C222:B700:79E3:73B6:BE11:2482 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing above. I was suspecting a failure of WP:BEFORE, but a bunch of those sources were even in the article at the time of creation, so I'm really not understand where the nominator's head is at on this one. Easy clearance of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:NALBUM and the WP:GNG. Unsure why this was redirected, then nominated. There is no case for an AfD, let alone for one-sided redirecting. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known artist, and Billboard non-appearances are not an article disqualification. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2400's sources providing an easy SIGCOV pass. Pretty amazed an AfD like this would even get made when all that coverage was already there. QuietHere (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A pretty obvious failure of WP:BEFORE. Reliable sources for the album can be found very easily, including in the article itself before the AFD was initiated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per gidonb TITANOSAURUS 05:10, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Bejko[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter specifically states that database websites are not acceptable for notability purposes as they have very low standards for inclusion and do not provide significant prose coverage. Searching in multiple search engines, I could find nothing other than database websites and Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:25, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinna Alagumuthu[edit]

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

Only 2 sources in the article, one of which is to a wikipedia page, while the other doesn't mention the subject at all. Couldn't find other sources to meet WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Tamil Nadu. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to his brother Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone who has rather more said about him in his article. The one source seems to be an Indian newspaper, probably one with a Hindutva POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seems notable. Contributor008 (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to being brother of a notable person he should be notable? no evidence of notability here. ZanciD (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pls don't delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThenmozhiRs (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Ali Mureed[edit]

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

Non-notable director. Sources cited don't provide significant coverage of him as a person, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Therefore fails WP:GNG, and no evidence of WP:FILMMAKER notability either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by the review og sources I did, I could not find multiple significant coverage of him. ZanciD (talk) 18:12, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Shea[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:FILMMAKER. No notabilty as a filmmaker - no enduring impact, awards, major releases. Coverage presented all incidental, passing, local or owned media. Previously deleted for notability, should be so again. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and salt into the bargain. No evidence the subject meets the GNG, or any other valid notability criteria. Ravenswing 05:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything on Google establishing his notability. Elbatli (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, maybe some day...Atsme 💬 📧 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. ZanciD (talk) 18:17, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Fares[edit]

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

There is very little to indicate that the subject is notable. The article is written like an advertisement and there are no sources in the article. From what I can tell, there is no substantive coverage in RS. Thenightaway (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have reverted to the sourced version which was overwritten by a PR blurb. PamD 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - There appears to be sufficient support for a subject the NYT describes in 2019 as "a Lebanese philanthropist and British Vogue contributing editor who founded the Fashion Trust in Britain." E.g. The Fashion Trust U.S. Assembles Board of Directors (WWD, 2022, includes her work with the Fashion Trust), British Fashion Council Foundation Brings On Co-chairs, Ramps Up Fundraising (WWD, 2021, includes her work with the British Fashion Council), An Ultimate Fashion Insider Explains Her Taste (The Cut, 2020, an interview, but with two introductory grafs about her), Lebanese designers dominate inaugural Fashion Trust Arabia Prize (CNN Style 2019, some context plus quotes), Meet the fairy godmothers of the fashion world (Evening Standard, 2018, includes "explains Tania Fares, 43, the business-savvy philanthropist who approached the British Fashion Council in 2011 with the idea for the Fashion Trust" plus more about the Fashion Trust), Inside the Lebanon Home of Tania Fares, Fashion’s Well-Traveled Power Broker (W 2018, includes a focus on her philanthropy and biographical information). This article would benefit from expansion, and these sources could help. Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 9 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Seedat (Islamic scholar)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS, they have not won a major award, are not highly cited, are not a named chair, are not the editor of a major journal, and are not elected to a major socalry society. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Article has massively improved and I withdraw my nomination. Good work everyone glad we were able to make some really great improvements here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Islam, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is she an Islamic scholar or a feminist-Islamic studies scholar? She doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and subjective criteria fails as Dr vulpes mentions. I wasn't able to find anything good on Google. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put (Islamic scholar) after her name because there is a South African Desi communist activist with the exact same name spelled the same way. Zaynab1418 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject likely passes both WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. The subject is a senior lecturer, a tenured position equivalent to an associate professor in the US system, she has a number of news mentions, a very considerable number of book mentions in relation to her expertise in the intersection of Islam and gender studies, including 14 separate mentions in the The Routledge Handbook of Islam and Gender, 4 mentions in the The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law and 3 mentions in Women and Gender in the Qur'an and a great number of published academic papers and scholarly mentions/citations (180 total works). In The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law (p.86), her "scholarly investigation of gendered legal subjecthood" is mentioned alongside the work of Judith E. Tucker, Kecia Ali and Marion Katz - all highly influential professors in Islam/gender and company that Fatima Seedat would not be numbered among unless she was a serious scholar in the field whose views on the topic stand toe-to-toe with those of more senior peers. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: Particularly in light of your nomination for the arbitration committee [3], and in the spirit of admitting your mistakes, I would like you to reconsider this nomination based on the information that I have collated above. I think it is now clear that the subject is very frequently referenced in her field. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure I am not running for ArbCom, I'm running to help aid the election for the next round of ArbCom members.

I have often and proudly admitted my mistakes here. There are AfDs (Bloody Elbow) where I've shifted from delete to keep. Let's compromise and work to improve this project. Add those sources to the article and if it passes WP:NACADEMICS I'll vote keep as I have before. This isn't a demand on you or anything. If the article isn't improved someone else will come along later and AfD it. I'm an academic but not an expect in South African, Islamic, Feminist studies. Does that sound fair @Iskandar323? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: I will certainly look to improve it when I find time, but notability should be based on the sourcing and information available, not solely the information as presented in an article. I am fully aware that this article is sub-par and I can certainly appreciate how a fairly casual inspection might tend some editors towards deletion. I am myself a bit of a deletionist, but in this instance, I wonder if a fully appreciative WP:BEFORE sweep was performed. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Would you be ok with sending it to draft until these issues are fixed? I have AfC privileges and am willing to review it if it's improved and then sent to AfC. Just ping me when it's ready and I'll take care of it. Thanks for being cool and accommodating about this whole process Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: I don't mind if it is drafted, though it's a fairly inoffensive stub + bibliography at present, so I don't really see what harm it is doing in mainspace where other potential contributors can find it. But either way, don't we procedurally first need this AfD to be closed? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at minimum per WP:BASIC - my initial research at the WP Library and additions to the article indicate that she is cited and discussed as a scholar and activist, and WP:AUTHOR notability may also have support with additional research. I object to draftification per the available sources and WP:NEXIST. While it may take some time to sort through and add sources, this is due to the volume of apparent support for notability, not because her notability appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Beccaynr (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know if I can vote because I'm the creator of the article. Fatima Seedat is one of the most well known South African Muslim feminist academics along with Sa'diyya Shaikh, and one of the three most famous South African Muslim feminists with Sa'diyya Shaikh and Shamima Shaikh (who both have Wiki articles). She has a new edited volume coming out this year, The Women's Khutbah Book: Contemporary Sermons on Spirituality and Justice from Around the World (2022). She has two khutbahs in this book. She and Sa'diyya are heading a new masters in Islam, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Cape Town. Seedats work is discussed in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic law (2018), Queer Muslim diasporas in contemporary literature and film (2019), Women and Gender in the Qur'an (2020), Peaceful Families: American Muslim Efforts against Domestic Violence (2019), Muslim Women and Gender Justice: Concepts, Sources, and Histories (2019), Routledge Handbook of Islam in the West (2022), and The Routledge Global History of Feminism (2022). Her work must be reasonably influential to be cited in Routledge and Oxford reference texts on Islam or feminism. These are major books by famous academic publishers and well-known Islamic studies academics such as Celene Ibrahim and Juliane Hammer. These are all recent citations.

She is cited in Veiled Superheroes: Islam, Feminism, and Popular Culture (2017) by Sophia Rose Arjana, Divine Words, Female Voices: Muslima Explorations in Comparative Feminist Theology (2018) by Jerusha Lamptey, and Islamic Feminism and the Discourse of Post-Liberation: The Cultural Turn in Algeria (2020) by Marnia Lazreg. Again, well-known Islamic studies scholars.

She has a chapter in Surfacing: On Being Black and Feminist in South Africa (2021). She is one of two non-Black/coloured women featured along with Sa'diyya, which must indicate some importance given how many other women could have been featured. The other contributors include Panashe Chigumadzi, Sisonke Msimang, Zoë Wicomb, Yewande Omotoso, Gertrude Fester, Zethu Matebeni, Zukiswa Wanner, Makhosazana Xaba,Yvette Abrahams, and Patricia McFadden. Almost all the women in this volume have Wiki articles. They are major SA feminists indicating Sadat is considered one as well, so she's logically worthy then of a Wiki entry.

The book Complexities of Spiritual Care in Plural Societies discusses her work as an imam. It's extremely rare for a woman to act as an imam or give a khutbah. I don't know of any other book that has collected women's khutbahs. It is literally the first of its kind. Other women who have acted as imams like amina wadud, Edina Leković, Raheel Reza, Halima Krausen, and Sherin Khankan have Wiki entries.

It's the nature of her being from a non-Western nation and working in a subset of an already small field that she just won't have as many citations as, say, an American economist. However, her article "Islam, feminism, and Islamic feminism: Between inadequacy and inevitability" has 112 citations on Google scholar. When Islam and Feminism Converge has 77 on Google Scholar. Zaynab1418 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her article "Islam, feminism, and Islamic feminism" is also translated into Indonesian published as a book, Islam Feminisme dan Islam Feminis translated by Dhika Marcendy. Zaynab1418 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep per explanations i read above, and references present in the article the subject is notable. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced about her notability based on the sources. I've consulted an academic in a closely related field for a "gut feel" on this one before I consider the sources and vote, but I doubt she meets WP:GNG. We may need to look to WP:ACADEMIC and look for better sources. Another thing to keep in mind is WP:OTHER and WP:INN: we can't justify the existence of this article based on the fact that other similar articles exist. Park3r (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the article, if it's ultimately decided she is not notable, then I want to ask for it to be moved into the draft space. She has a new book coming out, she is fairly young, and her citations are very recent. Zaynab1418 (talk) 19:28, 13 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 03:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kibubura Girls' Secondary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Sources cited do not provide sigcov of the school, and a search finds nothing more than the usual social media accounts, directory listings, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uganda. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 1 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!} 07:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 12 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. Among the arguments grounded in policy, there was consensus that the sourcing was sufficient to show the subject's notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jusuf Barčić[edit]

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

Irrelevant BIO as one can be. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the souces, it isn't irrelevant. Governor Sheng (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering article actual content, it's absolutely irrelevant. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be some mainstream news coverage. Can we check if this person gets significant coverage in any secondary sources, something analyzing their activities beyond the circumstances of death? The article seems to be burying the lede, talking about early and late life, but almost nothing about the middle, which is supposed to be the main claim to notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of this person in my life, so I tried to find something on him beyond reports of his traffic accident. Nothing. It seems that accident is the only reason in the first place why he found the way into media. It's sort of, this locally know reckless driver finally meat his maker, and here who he was. Standard eulogy for anons. Or maybe I am wrong.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned by secondary sources too. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22jusuf+barcic%22&btnG=. He is known for being a religous leader of many wahabbis in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Anyone familiar with the movement heard about him, as he was among the early ones, a pioneer so to say. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I checked six or seven (top to bottom - of course I skipped known "experts", lunatics like Tanasković, Nogradi, etc.) and found that he is still mentioned in passing, without information, whatsoever, on what that guy wanted, why is he significant if at all. So, he was an adherent of Salafism, and allegedly leader of a group, so what? What group, how big, what the group wanted is, of course, completely lacking in all papers that I checked. Why should anonymous adherent of Salafi Islamic sect be more relevant for English Wikipedia from, say, any ultra-conservative and radical sect in Christianity, just because he is mentioned in passing in some papers. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line for his relevancy, something which could reasonably make him relevant for English Wikipedia: is this person proven recruiter of Muslims for any of the wars in the Middle East, or responsible for or significantly connected (not guilty by superficial association) to some violent terrorist act anywhere? If not, he is completely irrelevant for our project. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reffering to someone as lunatic is enough for me. You're arguments aren't serious. Governor Sheng (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lunatic fringe is: the members of a political or social group or movement who have the most extreme or foolish ideas [4] ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can be really sure they're not part of the group themselves. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can check them yourself, and tell what you have found out. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the arguments brought by the nominator aren't serious enough. --Governor Sheng (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Irrelevant person. If he can get article, than you can make thousand more for various youtube guru's. --Mhare (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't a YT guru, but a person regarded as the founder of the Salafist movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a guy you can find a lot about from bunch of scholarly works spaning from 1988 to present. YT gurus don't have such notoriety. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "movement" in B-H, nor anywhere else, nothing to create - you are either adherent/follower or not - Salafism is very concretely defined and you can inform yourself in our article about it, or about Salafism in B-H through one of sources in this one, Czech researcher Zora Hesová. There is nothing inherently noteworthy or sinister in it, unless individual decide to get violent criminal or terrorist in order to impose his worldview on others. He could have been preacher, or more precisely, as Mhare, said YouTube Salafi guru. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should be sinister? Its a noteworthy religious movement. Also, YT gurus have their articles - PewdiePie comes to mind. Also, Barčić died long before YT was a thing, but whatever. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:31, 9 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!} 06:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content in this article has everything to do with cleanup and improvement. Santasa99, could you please tell me how does the subject fail GNG or any relevant subjective criteria. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have nothing on this person regarding his career and activities which would made him relevant for the project - unless someone believes that being adherent of Islam and follower of Salafi sect is inherently significant for the English Wikipedia. By thorough cleanup of this article buried in lede, we would be left with an obituary to anonymous.౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 10:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just your bias, the article has all what it needs. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are probably thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Salafi communities around the world, with each, or at least most, having a more or less charismatic preacher as a leader, are grouped in smaller or larger communities, more or less isolated from wider society, etc. Are they all due for their own standalone article, or we need to establish some significance in their existence, beyond the superficial passing mention in barely few secondary sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough sources. He didn't establish just any "Salafi" community, the secondary sources are good evidence for that. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Daft AfD for subject with clear notability case for their role in Islamism in the Balkans - has dozens of scholarly mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is Salafi religious fundamentalism equal Islamism? Who labels him as Islamist? Further, as I see the WP:Notability and WP:GNG we still need "Significant coverage", not passing mention - by the way, sources are good and independent, but they do not delve into Barcic persona and career as they should if we are to establish notability for standalone, mentions are anecdotal and superficial. I still wonder how many of people like this person could get their standalone article then, simply for being leaders of a village of 100 uneducated Salafi adherents, and/or caused a stir and commotion around a mosque that kicked them out. I mean, we have an article on fundamentalists like Kevin Swanson, but with him hangs half of United States conservative establishment, and he fills columns from Washington state to Finland, our guy here hangs with no one and fills only couple of those (online) tabloids in generally not so friendly countries to Bosnian Muslims, Serbia and Croatia. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Islamist because he sought to impose his religious preferences, reject secular institutions and install rule by sharia law - that's pretty much the working definition of Islamism. The subject is mentioned in numerous reliable, secondary scholarly works. That is amply notable by Wikipedia standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any one of these sources labels him Islamist, while your definition of Islamism is more than just reductive, and in case of this person simply not used by scholarship cited in article. As far as I was able to read through the papers, nobody gave any description in relation to him which fits our Islamism article definition. Every mosque and every Muslim community on the planet function upon Sharia jurisprudence, there is nothing mythical nor sinister about it. He rejected secularism and went to live life of Salafi preacher based on Sharia in the forest with 50-60 of his followers. All we have in these papers about that is anecdotal passing mention, without in-depth description about his agency and its extent - he had no political organization to voice his worldview, no access to mosques, and I bet he didn't live long enough to start exploiting YouTube. If every fringe guru from every god forsaken mountain with a YouTube account deserves an article, we would bury our project with them. Indonesia has 230 million Muslims and innumerable Salafi adherents, one major sectarian war and at least one major Islamist militia, and we have one article on a person, a leader of who knows how many Salafis under arms - in contrast we have three articles on village gurus roaming rural Bosnia, who in the last 30 yrs. were able to bring under their sway few hundreds of uneducated youths mostly with a criminal record. What's the point, am I missing something? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barčić isn't so isignificant as you think. The sources mention him as a person who fundamentaly shaped the Salafist community in BiH. The Salafist community in Bosnia and Herzegovina is itself a noteworthy phenomenon that needs to be explained on Wikipedia as well. Not only that, but as a sort of a pionir of the movement in BiH, he is mentioned by the sources, as a person who shaped also his "successors" Nusret Imamović and Bilal Bosnić, both of whom have their own respective articles here as well, and themselves are noteworthy. The mentions of him in the sources in questions aren't ancedotal, but well researched, as he is mentioned by notable researches from notable institutions, in a span from 1980s till the present day. That is not anectodal, and especially if the same facts were reported by many other scholarly sources. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you're a consipracy theorist. And it's you who is actually biased here, claiming that only because some of the sources are based in Croatia or Serbia, that they're anti-Bosnian Muslim. That's why your objections aren't serious. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to an array of sources covering "Jusuf Barcic", there are just as many under the alternative name "Yusuf Barčić". Jusuf was a significant leader in the Salafist/Wahhabi movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina so I do not understand why he would be considered an insignificant figure. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is he significant, what was he saying, writing (if at all), preaching, who influenced him and how, whom he influenced and how. Is he significant solely for being leader of Bosnian rag-tag group or was he a more than just that and how. Was he Modernist Salafi, Enlightened Salafi, was he purists, activists, jihadists. Article is grown paragraph or two since nomination, mostly through info repetition. This project lacks articles on leaders and authors the likes of Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif, but we have several Bosnian hicks, criminals and attention seekers, based on passing mention in several essays and papers on Bosnian group of couple of hundreds, not on any individual person. (It's like writing an article on local plum-brandy maker while lacking article on Pasteur. GNG says "significant" not any passing mention.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This all reads like opinion. Significance is determined by a presence in multiple reliable, secondary sources. That's it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the project is missing articles like "Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif", stop wasting time here and go create them. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are misinterpreting our core policy, which you can read as senior editor: GNG does not says that significance is established through sheer number of passing mention, it is actually state that significant mention is required if we want to establish notability. I find it disconcerting when senior editors try to misinterpret project's core policy. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens of scholarly mentions is not "a trivial mention" and your refusal to recognise this is becoming disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Number of mentions is trivial, if substance in those mentions is trivial. By the way, now you are obviously misquoting me as well - I said "passing mention" in sources, no matter how many one find is not enough to establish notability, GNG requires significant mention, and then writers of that core policy give us example what they had in mind - you are senior editor of 8 yrs of experience and 19 thousands of edits, so you better go on and read it yourself. Otherwise, you put yourself into situation where your persistence on notability of person like this makes no sense. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bla bla bla. This single source alone is a significant mention. So is this. So is this. As you have made plain, your reason for this nomination is a prejudice against encyclopedic articles on "Bosnian hicks, criminals and attention seekers". Not your call to make. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is still scope under ARBEE so please tone down your discussion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bla, bla, bla is not response I would expect from editor of your experience. Since we have trouble interpreting policies on establishing notability, I will quote here most basic parts:

Most crucial parts of WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC can be read here (bold emphasis is mine)

WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

Notability of people specific guideline WP:NBASIC - People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.

Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The key part your are failing to read over and over again is: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This subject has more than "a trivial mention" in multiple scholarly sources, ergo job done, ergo stop wasting community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? And how am I failing if I quoted it? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV from all appearances. The article is cited to several off-line books which appear to have significant coverage of the subject. The nominator has provided no source analysis, and we reasonably have no reason to believe that these sources aren't significant per WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Offline sources, and WP:Verifiability. In short, I am not seeing anything but a personally biased rationale for deletion, rather than a policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 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 delete. There is clear consensus that the content as it exists has problems with original research, and is not suitable as it stands. There are also reasonable concerns being raised that the topic isn't treated as a coherent whole by reliable sources, and as such isn't suitable for a standalone article at all; however, this issue was not discussed in detail. I have no objections to providing a draftspace copy, but only in the understanding that it will not be moved to mainspace by the main author. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century[edit]

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

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century

This article reads like an opinion piece in article space. It has twice been moved from article space to draft space, by User:Praxidicae and User:Bonadea. Both times the author has moved the article back to article space without attempting to discuss with the reviewers. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page (which was the draft talk page when the article was a draft). Maybe the author has a non-neutral point of view, since the topic is one in which a non-neutral point of view is at least as likely as a COI. The article consists in large part of excerpts from main articles, and that content will not be lost by deletion. Other than that, the introductory paragraphs are opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Africa, and Nigeria. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless cut and paste exercise to try and create an original topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

@Robert McClenon Hello. I'm curious if your perspective of the article "reading like an opinion piece" is one you get directly from reading the article, or if it's entirely anchored by the comments the reviewers left.

The article has undergone substantial modifications since each comment- after each comment it was modified to address the concerns of the reviewer. I doubt you'd be of the same perspective if you were reading the article unbiased by reviews of earlier versions.

The reviewers left messages on my Talk page - I replied to these messages explaining my perspective. I also left a message on User:Bonadea's Talk page, with no response.

Admittedly I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and this is my first article from scratch - I've made edits on a number of existing pages, but this is my first time trying to get a piece from scratch into the main article space. Maybe I should also have been posting messages on the article's Talk page - that seems like something important. I'm curious however why the reviewers didn't voice their concerns on the Talk page though - they're obviously more experienced than I am with Wikipedia, so I imagine if they knew article Talk page discussions were important they would initiate them.

About the Actual idea behind the article: Violent Extremism in West Africa is one coherent problem. The fundamental motivation for starting this article in the first place, is to emphasise that the instances of terrorism in the region are simply symptoms of one overall issue. Your observation that the piece contains excerpts from other articles is accurate. However these other articles treat the instances of terrorism as being separate and possibly independent. This is false and misleading, and could possibly stymy attempts to understand the issue at its source.

This VICE News article provides a very insightful analysis of extremism in West Africa as one coherent problem - not as scattered instances of unrelated terrorism. This specific insight is what I find missing from all existing Wikipedia articles on the general topic, and that was my motivation for writing this piece.

Yes I moved the piece back to article space - Usually this was after multiple messages to the reviewer - on my Talk page, on theirs, with no response. In my experience, moving a piece back into article space (after modifying it based on the reviewer's comments) is the most effective way to get perspective on it. Wikipedia reviewers are evidently more motivated to screen new pieces in the article space, than they are to give perspective on drafts. It's frustrating to think a draft has to wait 4+ months in the AfC space after each resubmission. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Violent extremism. No other part of the world has such detailed treatment on the subject. The main article should be expanded first, before developing a sub-article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Tamedu quaternion - First, to answer your question about whether I stated that the article read like an opinion piece based on reading the article or on reading the reviewers' comments, I read the article and was commenting on the article, and concurred with the comments of the other reviewers. Your question is insulting, but I have answered it as if it were a reasonable question. I read all three versions of the article, and it was my opinion that the changes that you made did not materially address the comments of the reviewers. You were evidently trying to guess what the reviewers meant, and were trying to make an optimistic guess; sometimes that isn't the best approach. Second, it is true that articles are reviewed more quickly in article space than in draft space. The actual average review time is much less than 3 or 4 months. There is a difference between the mean or mode of a distribution and the maximum of a distribution. One difference between review of an article that is moved into article space and a draft is that review of an article that was previously draftified is likely to result in its deletion. You were move warring. At this point, I don't plan to comment on the content of the article, since you have insulted the reviewers and the review process. This is not a good way to start as a Wikipedia editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I'm sorry if you found some of my comments offensive. That was not my intention- I have absolutely nothing to gain from insulting anyone on here - so far I've just been giving my perspective and detailing my experience here editing Wikipedia.

So far I've found Wikipedia reviewers more eager to shut down ideas without regard for my feelings, than to offer constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. There also tends to be the tendency for groupthink, where reviewers agree with earlier reviewers/admins without trying to really see things for themselves and get their own opinion on a piece. I've experienced that in waaay more intensity on German Wikipedia, but I feel like it might also exist here to some extent.

All of that definitely influences the tone of voice I use here - If you find it somewhat abrasive, then I'm sorry about that. It's not my intention, I'm just responding to the environment.

--

About the reviewers' comments, something that repeatedly comes up involves how "encyclopaedic" the piece is (or rather is not). Someone in the help channel suggested that I restrict the scope of the article to the 21st century, and I modified the article title accordingly. It made a lot of sense, and that way the piece wasn't claiming to give a comprehensive historical discourse on the topic.

You mention that I seem to have been guessing what the reviewers meant in their comments. I'm curious what you mean by this, and I'm very open to have you further break down the parts of their feedback I don't seem to be sensitised to. Some concerns I feel I have addressed- like a relative lack of citations, and recentism. More Wikipedia-specific attributes like "being encyclopaedic" are notions I'm completely open to learning about and obtaining feedback on.

--

About review times, the article had spent about three months as a draft before I made the first page move into article space. When it was reverted to a draft, it spent close to a month there. I didn't see any obvious signs that it would be reviewed any more quickly than the first time.

In both instances I got a reviewer to provide perspective on the article within hours of moving it into article space. In one case I got feedback in fifteen minutes. Moving the article just seemed like a much more effective way to get perspective on it.

--

Again I'm sorry if you found some of my words offensive - that is in no way my intention. I am very open to learning and receiving helpful feedback, and I do hope we can have a productive and enlightening discussion, thanks. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion in case other editors think there is content that should be Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete laden with problems of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:51, 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!} 06:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(weak) Merge to Violent extremism to be the most appropriate solution. There are sources which indicate the notability of the phenomenon specifically in West Africa, but a brief section in the main article will probably suffice. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article conflates violent extremism with counter-terrorism policy and conflates geographic regions. The article mixes sources which speak of the Sahel (some of which is in West Africa and some not), Coastal West Africa (so a part of West Africa, but not West Africa) and West Africa. Also note the use of sources considered unreliable. I do not see what is salvageable here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, a list could be added to the main article with entries of movements described as "violent extremism" by reliable sources. Beyond that, I would have to take a closer look. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Hello- I feel there are issues with your understanding of West African geography which mislead your inferences. You think of these geographical regions (Sahel, Coastal West Africa, West Africa) as being way more distinct and way less inter-related/synonymous than they really are.

The article talks about how extremist groups from the Sahel are pervading countries in West Africa. It's one problem - it's one fundamental brand of extremism - there's no way to discuss extremism in West Africa without talking about the Sahel. That's like talking about eg Turkish migration into Western Europe without discussing Turkey itself, or countries in between.

Your perspective that "Coastal West Africa is a part of West Africa, but not West Africa" is just wrong. About eighty to ninety percent of countries in "Coastal West Africa" also extend upwards into more central West Africa. You could take a look at Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Ghana, etc.

A country like Mali also happens to be about equally spread out between the Sahel and more central West Africa. You cannot speak of these regions as being so distinct when a lot of countries overlap across them.

And then do you mind shedding some light on what cited sources are "considered unreliable"? I'm curious what sources you're referring to. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is self published, there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice News. The article mixes sources that cover different regions/subregions. There's plenty of sources on counter-terrorism in ECOWAS; that would be a far more appropriate subject for an article, that could be reliably sourced. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and strongly oppose merge per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. The article is full of original synthesis, original research, and is supported by self published materials like youtube. Given the inherent problems in the article, there is nothing of value to preserve and merge. Merging would only negatively impact the article on violent extremism by introducing non-verifiable content.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is mostly about disparate events in different countries in West Africa. The sources that link it all together as one idea are either a) sources that probably don't meet WP:V (like the YouTube links) or b) sources about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy. This isn't enough to justify a separate article. There might be an argument for having an article about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy but that content would probably be better suited for the actual ECOWAS article, which currently has no information on this. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:00, 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 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!} 06:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Sotheavuth[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources found and no mention of the subject at the single listed source. 0xDeadbeef 05:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Cambodia. 0xDeadbeef 05:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 1 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!} 06:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find any evidence of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:20, 9 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nadia[edit]

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

Non-notable and fails WP:NSCHOOL. Refs are non-independent or trivial, the news announcements on coronavirus cases are routine, not SIGCOV, and violates WP:NOTNEWS. VickKiang (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far The Times of India 29 Students got Covid 19 Positive in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nadia. Mr. Rasel Hasan (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These violate WP:NOTNEWS IMHO and constitute as routine announcements failing WP:NORG, could you find more? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/west-bengal/29-students-test-positive-in-nadia-jawahar-navodaya-vidyalaya/cid/1844603?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D# Mr. Rasel Hasan (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a school, and it had a COVID outbreak. It's mentioned incidentally in routine news coverage of one of thousands of COVID outbreaks. But it's not notable – see WP:SCHOOL and WP:NOTNEWS, unless it becomes a significant story for some other reason. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meets WP:School Contributor008 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable school. NMasiha (talk) 18:21, 13 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 deleted by Ponyo per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grungecake[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I've gone through the sources in the article and precisely zero of them appear to contribute towards corporate notability:

NCORP table

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

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
GRUNGECAKE's website	This is the website of the article subject	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	Moot as clearly non-independent
Vanguard (Nigeria) (1)	Unclear. This might be a press release that was regurgitated by multiple newspapers (see link to Nigeria's The Guardian below)	NPP source guide says reliable, though this story doesn't exactly have a byline and reads almost as if a press release	While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal.	why not?
Jamaica Observer	It appears so.	Why not?	While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal.	why not?
Vanguard (Nigeria) 2	I think so?	NPP Source guide says reliable	While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal.	why not?
The Guardian (Nigeria)	Unclear. This might be a press release that was regurgitated by multiple newspapers (see first link to The Vanguard of Nigeria above)	NPP source guide says reliable	While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal.	why not?
New Telegraph	I think so?	why not?	GRUNGECAKE is trivially mentioned in ~2 sentences.	why not?
Independent Nigeria	I think so?	Why not?	GRUNGECAKE is trivially mentioned in passing.	why not?
iMullar	Per WP:ORGIND, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.	This is a raw transcript with an interview of GRUNGECAKE's founder. It's probably faithful to the words of that interview.	– There's some discussion of GRUNGECAKE that borders on being significant coverage	This is a raw interview, which is definitionally a primary source.
The Nation (Nigeria)	I think so, though I'm skeptical w.r.t. the independence of the content.	NPP Source guide says this is a reliable newspaper	While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal.	why not?
Lomography	There's issues with the independence of the content given the long interview with a non-WP:ORGIND party. They also appear to have sponsored the group by giving them a free camera and then interviewing them after the fact.	This is the blog of a camera manufacturer, which is certainly not a WP:NEWSORG.	GRUNGECAKE is certainly discussed significantly.	– The vast majority of the coverage of GRUNGECAKE comes from verbatim responses in an interview, which is a primary source. The opening paragraph might be secondary coverage.
GhanaWeb	Seems to be independently written	Seems like a WP:NEWSORG	Grungecake gets trivially mentioned in about two sentences.	The coverage is so brief that it's not clear that there's a way to do primary vs secondary source analysis
PM News Nigeria	Why not?	Why not?	The coverage of GRUNGECAKE as a company/platform is trivial in light of WP:ORGDEPTH.	Some of the coverage appears to be secondary.
Blueprint (Nigeria)	This appears to be based off a press release and not rewritten, which would impair independence in light of WP:ORGIND	why not?	While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal.	This appears to be a regurgitation of primary source material rather than secondary coverage
This Day	This appears to be based off a press release and not rewritten, which would impair independence in light of WP:ORGIND	Why not?	While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal.	Why not?

Additionally, I'm also not able to find WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage of GRUNGECAKE form multiple independent RS after conducting an online search. Richardine Bartee, its founder, does appear to have an article, so I propose that this be blanked and redirected to her article, where the topic can be adequately covered. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, Africa, and United States of America. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it took me a while to read and understand Wikipedia, The website is Grammy recognized and owned by a recording academy board member. The sites has been covered in reliable sources and doesn’t need a very long article for confusion to pass Wikipedia GNG, the site was recognized in 2020 as the number 3 site to find new hip hop music and that is a sure time pass. I don’t just create articles, I read this Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide very well before starting to create this article. Afternoon Daydream (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from this company’s founder, even though she is clearly notable. That notability of a company is not inherited from notability of its founder is a foundational principle of corporate notability on Wikipedia.
  At minimum, would you please provide a list of WP:THREE sources you believe show this company passes WP:NCORP, and why you believe that their coverage qualifies as WP:SIRS? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~I have just changed my mind, I support the redirection you suggested. Afternoon Daydream (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)~~strike sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I’m the author of the article and as per nominator’s, i support the redirection to Richardine Bartee. Afternoon Daydream (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richardine Bartee. Makes sense, also lets us keep a copy of the old work should this ever pass WP:NCORP Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I've deleted the article per WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richardine Bartee. NMasiha (talk) 18:18, 13 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!} 06:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athena (Saint Seiya)[edit]

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

A classic (old) fictional character from manga/anime, but with no evidence of notability. No reception or creation sections, just a plot summary and a list of appearances in non-independent spin-offs or such. My BEFORE failed to find anything of relevance. Ja wiki entry is not offering any analysis, reception, or such. PS. A soft-delete-friendly option of redirecting this to List_of_Saint_Seiya_characters#Saori_Kido without "hard deleting" the history can be considered. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

soft delete seems the way to go. Moka38 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't belong to Wikipedia. This should be written in other 3rd party websites like WikiFandom or something. Ploreky — Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 12 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. I'd also note that the arguments here are essentially the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) which saw wider participation. Legoktm (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)[edit]

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

Same reasons as Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and Kherson Oblast (Russia). Unnecessary fork with an inherent likelihood of turning into a POV fork, and makes maintenance difficult. Best to keep it within existing articles. Panam2014 (talk) 00:29, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same opinion as for Luhansk. The articles Donetsk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) don't cover the same topic. The first one is about the independent country that existed from 2014 to 2022. The second one is about a new federal subject within the Russian Federation. Therefore, this article should be kept. Vgaiyfi (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. Clyde ^{State your case} (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 01:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise surprise, Vgaiyfi was a sock. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete. It's WP:TOOSOON to have this article. Redrafticiation may also be good since the draft did seem to have quite a few editors working on it, but I'm not one of them, so I didn't want to !vote for that. Clyde ^{State your case} (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 01:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Clyde's comment! After all, I can't tell as of yet whether the annexation of the "DNR" and other regions is planned or implemented as of yet. Besides, the new articles have very little content on it! SleepTrain456 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:REDUNDANTFORK. —Michael Z. 02:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON Evercool1 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new federal subject will be an oblast, so it is likely that after the ratification by the Federation Council we will see what type of federal subject it will be. There are no People Republic's within Russia, there are Republics though. We should wait until we find out the federal subject type. Dashing24 (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep we have articles like this already, that is one entity going from territory or puppet state stage to some form of deeeper integration. Like Oklahoma Territory becoming Oklahoma orthe Baathist puppet Republic of Kuwait becoming the Kuwait Governorate or Litbel becoming Belarusian SSR. Since the separatists are de jure separate entities from their prior status it makes sense to have new articles for their new status. That said, this is quite recent so very little has been written so far. All that is on this page could be on their old articles. But I think this page could be kept for future developments. It works either way. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge per TOOSOON and REDUNDANTFORK as mentioned by others. Let's at least wait until there's more info on what makes this a meaningfully distinct topic. What information would go here that's not already covered by Donetsk People's Republic and Donetsk Oblast? My preference is a restructuring of the Donetsk People's Republic page into an article about the new de facto federal subject. That would make more sense to me than two separate pages. Especially if it ends up using the same name, same flag, and has the same Russian-installed leaders (e.g. Pushilin). Move the parts about Donetsk as a partially recognized quasi puppet state into a history section. The article needs to be trimmed down anyways, we'd kill two birds with one stone and be able to remove the "This article is currently a list of factoids and events" tag. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait to Keep By the time this discussion is closed, Donetsk annexation will already be ratified by the State Duma. BigRed606 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referenced in multiple reliable sources now. Policy-wise, articles dedicated to unrecognised administrative entities (micronations, quasi-states, occupied territories, etc.) are common on Wikipedia, and we strive to have separate articles representing all the conflicting claims. We thus have both Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija; Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (state); Northern Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus; Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Taiwan; and so on. Although the annexation isn't recognised outside of Russia, this doesn't make these administrative units disappear. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These examples are more analogous to us having both Donetsk Oblast and Donetsk People's Republic, not having a third "Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)" article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donetsk People's Republic no longer claims to exist as a quasi-state. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if it's out of the scope of this AfD to discuss covering the two DPR entities on the same page then I may start a merge discussion at a later date (if this page is kept, that is) Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to have separate articles for each legal form in a region's history. See e.g. hatnotes at each section of Afghanistan#Modern history or History of the British Isles. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but it's hard to compare Afghan history to Donetsk history, especially when there hasn't actually been any change in the regime. Before 2022, the Donetsk People's Republic was a Russian-occupied polity led by Putin-backed ally Denis Pushilin. And after 2022, the Donetsk People's Republic is a Russian-occupied polity led by Putin-backed ally Denis Pushilin. There wasn't actually any sort of political reorganization here, no history being made. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON (way too soon, in fact). TH1980 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it "way" too soon? Super Ψ Dro 08:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article will exist in the future no matter what. Deleting it now to recreate it one month later is nonsense. Super Ψ Dro 08:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Donetsk People's Republic. I refer to my !vote in the discussion about Kherson Oblast for the reasoning. In short, a case of WP:TOOSOON, but when independent coverage about DPR as a federal subject appears, I'm fine with recreation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable entity, widely discussed in many sources, regardless of whether it ever actually functions. Furius (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The (illegal) existence of such a republic in Russia is a fact, the existence of such a page does not legitimize it in any way, so deletion is absolutely unnecessarily. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all other (claimed or legal) regions under Russia have their own page, including the others annexed by Russia, no need to delete this. See Crimea, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Luhansk.Yeoutie (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Russia has already officialised the DNR — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a de facto province of Russia, it's not like it's propaganda to include this any more than having an article on the original DPR was. Also, there should be a separate article from the DPR quasi-nation due to its longevity. (Like how we have Chechnya and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.144.41 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This page is WP:POVFORK of page Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. Some content could be merged there. In addition, the subject is not clearly defined. If this is about a territorial entity called "Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)", then does it cover the whole Ukrainian Donetsk Oblast or only a part currently occupied by Russia? If the former, this is a misnomer: how can it be "a de facto federal subject of Russia" if most of the territory is de facto controlled by Ukraine? If the latter, then Ukrainian forces just took back a large part of this territory around the city of Liman, and are going to take more tomorrow. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft: WP:OR It's not even clear as what kind of administrative division Russia is claiming this place. And "People's Republic" is not coming once in Russia's adm. divisons. Beshogur (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like all the other ridiculous FORKS with Putinist irredentist propaganda.Just Alabama (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BitterGiant (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as a POV fork of something that doesn't really exist. ansh.666 01:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep or delete anything can happen but in fever of fact not behalf of pro-Ukrainian sentiment because to many Ukrainian propaganda in the chat. 🇮🇳🇷🇺🇺🇦 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon-ymousTrecen (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) - Jjpachano (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donetsk People's Republic or Delete and wait until the 8 October deadline for "full-integration", i.e. the likely time when the legal terms of the newly annexed territory are spelled out by the Russian government. Yue🌙 07:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yue ThalassocraticEmperor (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete honestly, just makes sense Great Mercian (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) Mtonna257 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia exists to document, not make judgements. There's too many knee-jerk reactions here. Russia has made a claim. Wikipedia documents. It's not a statement of legitimacy. Nobody asking for deletion can claim this does not exist! We tend to write separate claims about territorial conflicts in separate articles. If the war goes Ukraine's way, this article will be an obscure historical footnote. That's fine. Wikipedia has a lot of those. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis probably should have been bundled together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugansk People's Republic (Russia)#Lugansk_People's Republic (Russia). Since both were proposed, both houses of Russian parliament have ratified on 3 October so new legal entities exist. Merely because we have such articles does not mean the physical territories are not occupied and there are articles covering those occupations. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia). This isn't a POV fork, it's an article on a subnational governmental entity. Sure, it lacks international recognition, but that does not mean it does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not exist as a specified territory with defined and stable borders. First, Russia made it bigger during the war, then Ukraine forces made it smaller just a few days ago, after taking Lyman. My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear example of a WP:POVFORK. There is already an article on this region. There is little or no sourcing here that is not repeated from the Russian Government, and nowhere even remotely close to WP:SIGCOV. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Wikipedia has no shortage of articles on parallel governments, overlapping territorial claims, unrecognised and/or insubstantial administrative formations, and short-lived political entities. The only reason I can think of why this case should be any different is that, given the current trajectory of the military situation in Ukraine, it's quite plausible that the Donetsk and Luhansk may not remain under Russian occupation for much longer, and that during this time the de facto governance of these two areas as Russian subdivisions will not have been meaningfully different from their previous governance as notionally "independent" puppet states. If this does pan out to be the case, I would fully support merging this article and its LPR analogue into the articles for their preceding puppet states. Ditto for merging Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and Kherson Oblast (Russia) with Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, respectively. --~~ Radio-Somewhere (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork of Donetsk's People's Republic. Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete replace the infobox in Donetsk People's Republic with the Russian territory article Mhatopzz (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The other three articles—Kherson Ob. Ru, Zapo Ob. Ru, and Luhansk PR, RU—have all been deleted. We may as well delete this one to be consistent. The entity of "Donetsk PR, RU" should be mentioned inside of the existing article about the DPR separatist state. We need to restructure that article to reflect the new political status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and Kherson Oblast (Russia). POV fork, built around crystal-ball thinking and questionable use of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per 3 others. POVFORK.
Panam2014 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a WP:POVFORK, to the degree that even just the article's title suggests an advancement of what appears to be a minority viewpoint with respect to an ongoing and daily-changing event. WP:TOOSOON at best. - Aoidh (talk) 17:46, 8 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Achita (crater)[edit]

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

This crater on Ceres does not seem to be notable, while there is a bit more coverage floating about than the last batch I nominated, there still doesn't seem to be enough to cause a GNG pass. Of the three most promising Google Scholar results, this is just a one-sentence long caption, and while I can only see the abstracts of the other two sources, this is seemingly also a one-sentence caption, while this is slightly more extensive but still doesn't look like enough to contribute to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep: Based on search results, Pasckert et al (2018) appears to have at least some discussion of this crater, but I don't have access. There's also a small article from the Planetary Society,[5] and one from JPL.[6] Praemonitus (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Planetary Society or JPL sources provide significant coverage. The JPL source barely even talks about the crater at all, most of the article consists of generic information about the Dawn mission, and while the Planetary Society source is somewhat more detailed, it's still only a single paragraph of information, and I don't think there's enough there to be considered SIGCOV. That leaves only the Paskett source, which itself is questionable as to whether it provides SIGCOV, and by itself is not enough to pass WP:GNG in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the sources that Praemonitus found. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some papers that describe the crater and the Dawn mission that imaged Achita. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:45, 8 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 no consensus. Clearly No consensus between those who believe WP:SIGCOV is now met through new sources and those editors who don't. I don't think relisting this discussion would resolve this difference of opinion on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Di Micele[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and I couldn't find any coverage. Article was under PROD which was removed then readded by User:Anachronist who claims to have found sources and may have an argument for WP:DRAFTIFY. I didn't see any coverage so I'm personally leaning toward delete, but I'd like to hear them out first. Also pinging User:UtherSRG who initiated the PROD. QuietHere (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Jersey, and Oregon. QuietHere (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And a note for anyone searching that there are more results to be found under "Alice DiMicele" spelling. Page was recently moved from that spelling to the current one without discussion which I suspect might've been the wrong move just based on sheer number of results on Google and the Wayback Machine. QuietHere (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to her own website, the spelling is "Di Micele" (with space), but the Internet often removes the space, leading to both versions being visible in search results. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my name on drivers license is spelled Di Micele for the record. I had know idea what a huge pain it would be for me... I might have used a stage name had I know this 35 years ago... but here we are and I'm still doing my thing. Alicedimicele (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete or draftify - I originally removed the prod and created this AFD page, which I subsequently deleted after I actually did find sources, and then I reverted my edit that had replaced the prod with the AFD tag in the article, which had the effect of restoring the prod.
Plenty of newspaper sources here: https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Alice+Di+Micele%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks - although many of them are just announcements with a smattering of pieces giving significant coverage. Therefore, while I think the article is abysmal and qualifies for speedy deletion in its current state because it makes no credible assertion of significance, cites no independent sources, and fails to demonstrate any inclusion criterion in WP:MUSICBIO, I am no longer convinced that the subject isn't notable because independent coverage does exist. I wouldn't object to draftification. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list did provide this piece which is solid coverage, but that's it. There was one festival review where she got one sentence of praise, but otherwise it's all concert announcements without any prose about the subject. I'm still leaning on delete; not much point in draftifying without knowing there's enough coverage to actually save the article 'cause it won't pass notability in draft reviews. QuietHere (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's been around for a long time and seems to get a lot of gigs, because newspaper announcements of her local appearances are pretty prevalent. However, I can find very little substantial coverage of her career of the type that can build an encyclopedic article. She gets some minor coverage like this album review: [7], and this biographical intro: [8]. Unfortunately I can't find anything truly reliable and significant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I PROD'd, because it was tagged as Speedy, but I couldn't justify under the CSD guidelines. I'm surprised this article has lasted for so many years without a deletion discussion. I'm leaning towards delete, though draftify would be a good option. I'm also the user who moved it to its current placement, based off of the edits on the topic's name and the edit comments about that (which cite the artist's own website). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The overall lack of coverage, relatively obscure starting point and external references build a decent-enough case as things currently stand, but what really stands out to me is the lack of any holistic significance that would be beneficial in an encyclopedic format. Regardless of whether garnering attention plays into any of the already-noted sources, the sheer fact that most pieces are mere announcements of the subject's existence - nothing more, nothing less, and certainly nothing of use apart from compiling a loose list of appearances - justify the negligibility of the page's creation in the first place. Without any significant value as a page, there's no legitiamte reason I can find to justify its existence, either in the past or in the future. ^^ Anyone else? TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alice herself attempted to edit the article. I reversed that I put her onto the WP:COI policy. She's left information on her own talk that may be of help in determining significance or notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there was coverage discussing all those things then it would be a lot easier to be convinced, but I don't think we can take any artist at their word alone for notability because we'd still have an unsourced article just full of even more unsourced claims directly from the artist (which I assume would still be a COI violation). QuietHere (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for being relevant to a city, here's the Best of Ashland, Oregon where I was chosen in 2020 as favorite singer/musician: https://www.sneakpre.com/ashland-business-grapevine/item/the-best-of-ashland-part-2 I also won first place several times in the 90's and have had mention in many recent years as well.

For music charts relevant to my kind of music: The Folk Alliance International Folk Chart for March 2022: https://acousticmusicscene.com/2022/04/12/fai-folk-radio-charts-march-2022/

and April: https://acousticmusicscene.com/2022/05/10/fai-folk-radio-charts-april-2022/

Here's one with my 2018 Release One With the Tide: https://www.folkradio.org/chart/january-2018/

Here's the Roots Music Report in 2015 which shows my album Swim and songs from it. https://www.rootsmusicreport.com/charts/view/song/genre/folk/weekly/2015-04-14/2015-04-14

Here two songs from the 2015 album were still charting in 2021: https://www.rootsmusicreport.com/charts/view/song/sub_genre/alternative-folk/weekly/2021-08-07/2021-08-07

Here's one from 2007: https://www.rootsmusicreport.com/charts/view/song/sub_genre/alternative-folk/weekly/2021-08-07/2021-08-07

I know my other albums also charted on these and on an Americana chart. Is this enough or do I need to keep searching for more?

Awards: my 2013 album If I Were An Otter: Songs for Kids of All Ages received a Parents Choice Award. I have the physical award, but I can't find it online. I could upload if that would help. That album is in many libraries across the US and the title track has over 300k streams on spotify and my songs are on over 300 playlists on spotify including editorial, algorithmic and user playlists. Here's a review in No Depression of that album: https://www.nodepression.com/great-kids-music-heidi-swedberg-alice-dimicele-the-banjo-and-putumayo-americana/

a few of the reviews for the new album (most are from Europe):

https://americana-uk.com/alice-dimicele-every-seed-we-plant

https://rockingmagpie.wordpress.com/2022/04/18/alice-dimicele-every-seed-we-plant/

https://www.liverpoolsoundandvision.co.uk/2022/04/01/alice-dimicele-every-seed-we-plant-album-review/

https://dekrentenuitdepop.blogspot.com/2022/03/alice-di-micele-every-seed-we-plant.html

https://www.keysandchords.com/album-review-blog/alice-dimicele-every-seed-we-plant

https://www.fatea-records.co.uk/magazine/reviews/AliceDiMicele3/

https://dancing-about-architecture.com/every-seed-we-plant-alice-dimicele-reviewed-by-ian-oregan/

https://orangeflagmusic.com/recensies/alice-dimicele-every-seed-we-plant

https://www.fabricationshq.com/2022-reviews.html (you have to scroll down to find it on here)

https://www.gaesteliste.de/review/show.html?_nr=21545

http://musicriot.co.uk/album/every-seed-we-plant-alice-dimicele/

video premiere: https://americanahighways.org/2022/02/21/song-premiere-alice-dimicele-alone/

https://americana-uk.com/video-premiere-alice-dimicele-free

Alicedimicele (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
forgot to include my GLAMA award for Out recording. My song Do You Dare? came in 2nd place. https://www.queermusicheritage.com/awards.html Alicedimicele (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Out! Magazine was a major folk mag both print and online for a very long time.

Here is a review of my 2015 album: https://singout.org/alice-dimicele-swim/

and it made it in their best of 2015 column as well: https://singout.org/bestof2015/

West Coast Live is a syndicated live radio show out of the Bay Area. I played on October 18th 2008 on the same show with Sarah Vowell & Van Jones. It is distributed all over the US on many radio stations. Here is the archived version: https://wcl.org/past-programs-2008

The Jefferson Monthly is a magazine put out by Jefferson Public Radio the premiere radio station of my region where I get lots of airplay. The listenership spans from south of Eugene Oregon to Mendocino county in California. It's the largest area radio station that I know of. This contains a review/article on page 41 that talks about my significance in the Southern Oregon music scene: https://issuu.com/wpdigitalpublications/docs/jefferson_at_trim_size Alicedimicele (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll be working on improving the citations and references for this page throughout the month of October. Folk music is a niche which means the typical Google searches won't be helpful (as noted by others above). I have knowledge of the folk music genre and have had better luck finding appropriate sources and will help improve this entry. I will work with the sources Alicedimicele has provided as well. I hope other editors will keep in mind that notability within the folk genre will have different sources and references than, say, a commercial pop star. Thank you. Jfricker (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfricker: Thank you. However, the WP:MUSICBIO critera are not specific to pop stars, they apply to every musician. Which of those criteria do you feel she meets? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SIGCOV. She is the subject of significant coverage over a sustained period. There are sources mentioned above, in the article, and here: 1992 1998 1998. Her songs and activism also appear in scholarly literature (Google Scholar: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) TJMSmith (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage found demonstrates she has received prolonged coverage demonstrating GNG. Thriley (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this entry for Alice Di Micele and kindly remove all deficiency claims. As a professor of sociology I have addressed all standing problems, added legitimate citations, and categorized this composer and songwriter also as an activist. As such, Wiki should not use mere “musician” characteristics for quality control, but also consider Alice’s work as a philanthropist and community organizer. As these categories do not leave behind extensive online evidence, the data driven changes I made for this musician /sociomusicologist have exceeded the criteria for permanent wiki inclusion. Thank you, in advance, for considering and accepting my edits and reversing deletion for this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisiunia (talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Copied from Special:PermaLink/1115960069 on talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 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 and turn Mount Trumbull School, Arizona into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Trumbull, Arizona[edit]

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

No evidence of a town or community here. The "populated place" description is sourced to GNIS and Hometown Locator which are not reliable for Feature Class designations. Reliable sources only discuss the historic schoolhouse which is covered at Mount Trumbull School, Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, clearly a populate place as the refs show. Nom has stated that GNIS is not a reliable source for Feature Class designations. This is based on an essay the nom wrote themselves. Mt. Trumbull was included in the 1930 census [https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1930/population-volume-1/03815512v1ch03.pdf see here, page 96, with a population of 111. Once this is kept, the stub about the schoolhouse, should be redirected to this article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also known as Bundyville. This article appears to be a RS and says the community had almost 200 residents in the 1930s. This also calls it a settlement. It's mentioned in others that are probably not reliable such as this which said it had a post office from 1919 to 1950. This says an NAU article said it was the biggest community of the Arizona Strip at one time (first half 20th c.) I think it should probably be moved to Bundyville, Arizona and the Mount Trumbull School, Arizona merged in since they are both very small and closely related. MB 21:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Bundyville, is that they were not on the census, Trumbull was, therefore Trumbull was the officially designated location. As the one source says, "On the map, Bundyville is actually called Mount Trumbull". Bundyville is a nickname.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources indicate it was most commonly called Bundyville. Mount Trumbull, Arizona can be the redirect. MB 23:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, two of the sources you link, state that the real name is Mount Trumbull, and the other two state, "Bundyville is synonymous with 'Mount Turnbull" and "Bundyville (also known as Mount Trumbull)". Since the official government designation is Mount Trumbull, as shown in the census, the article should remain titled as such. But those are great sources to expand the stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs, satisfies NGEO. Djflem (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Mount Trumbull School, Arizona (which should be Mount Trumbull School (Arizona) or simply Mount Trumbull School (no disam needed) can be merged here. New redirect from Bundyville, Arizona to this article is in order. Djflem (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert Mount Trumbull School, Arizona into a redirect. The WP:BLAR process for "MT School, AZ" will add to the sourcing for this article. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 13 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!} 03:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Abu Sheikh[edit]

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

BLP of a successful businessman. Some of his companies may be notable but I don’t think there’s enough in the sources to sustain a biography. Mccapra (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jordan. Mccapra (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of passing mentions, interviews, and the like, but I couldn't find anything that would satisfy the GNG. Agree that his companies might be notable (though I haven't looked at it in detail), so a redirect would be fine if an article were ever created on one of them. Until then, though, this is a delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:44, 11 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!} 03:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torres[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who won only state-level (New Jersey) titles as a pro and regional titles as an amateur. His most notable achievement was probably reaching the semifinals of the national Golden Gloves tournament in 2001. A search of Google and Newspapers.com yield no GNG-level coverage, just passing mentions. The only exception I was able to find, this, is not enough. JTtheOG (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a retired boxer who fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. State titles are insufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:47, 9 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 23:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Dikun[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 26th in the world bantamweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Also fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article are mostly routine coverage, and I failed to find anything significant to pass GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:13, 1 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!} 02:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA, not surprising given a career record of 9 wins and 8 losses. The only sources I could find for him were MMA databases, fight results, and fight promotional articles. None of these are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 12 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!} 06:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Ambriz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 28th in the world heavyweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Also fails WP:GNG. The subject lacks significant coverage through independent and reliable sources. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:09, 1 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!} 02:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and lost more fights than he won. I don't see any sources that clearly show significant independent coverage of him. I see database listings along with fight announcements and results, but that's true of any pro fighter. There's nothing to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:06, 12 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Burns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. There is no reliable coverage that I could find, including the sources already in the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, I was unable to find significant and reliable coverage.Elbatli (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of social media, some occasional press release coverage in unreliable sources (example), but no real evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable references, fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. ZanciD (talk) 18:21, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy inheritance[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Article was created in 2007 and contains one external reference, a library maintained by the creator of the article. I can find no other mentions of this concept on the web, and it doesn't sound like any other design pattern I can think of, except maybe a bad explanation of dependency injection, which already has a much higher quality article. Also has a redirect pointing at it, Lazy Inheritance. 3mi1y (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 3mi1y (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. Fails WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah this fails WP:SIGCOV wasn't able to find anything that would change that. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above. BD2412 T 06:08, 9 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.

Hippo Hardware and Trading Company[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was restored after a speedy deletion, but has no claims of notability. Original author has some notes in the talk for possible notability. UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I hadn't realized this had just been un-deleted and that the speedy notice that was on the article was a remnant of that un-deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). I've quickly and easily expanded the article from a few simple Google searches. Next time, would be courteous to give an editor more than a few hours to expand an article following a speedy deletion restoration. And yes, as noted, I've shared on the article's talk page that The Oregonian has dozens of returns spanning decades. Subject seems obviously notable to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 8 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.