Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

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 redirect‎ to Miss Virginia#Winners. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Willis (Miss Virginia)[edit]

Rosemary Willis (Miss Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG as a beauty pageant contestant. WP:BLP1E applies. Let'srun (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2023 (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! 23:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Barratt[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no viable third-party coverage. Article is a mess of promotional content and puffery backed by dubious sourcing (own websites, IMDb, and Amazon). sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found no additional coverage. If The Beatles Complete On Ukulele gets kept at its AfD then redirect there instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable and promotional article. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 18:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional article with insufficient sourcing. Suonii180 (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2023 (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! 23:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Complete On Ukulele[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Beatles Complete On Ukulele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tribute album with no viable third-party coverage. Article has been unsourced since its 2009 creation. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found no additional coverage aside from the NY Post article linked in the prior AfD. Also worth linking the AfD on the lead artist behind this project, David Barratt. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though if the Barratt page gets kept, this should be redirected there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:47, 27 November 2023 (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 without prejudice against further discussions of merging. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[edit]

Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I raised issues with this page in August at Talk:Nationality_of_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Justification_for_article, to which Michael Bednarek replied by essentially repeating the substance of the complaint: there is no source that actually covers an actual discussion about Mozart's nationality -- the article presents this as an academic debate when no such debate is acknowledged in the sources. As I note, there exists a manner in which WP can write about this topic, but no such substance exists in the current article, nor has any effort been made to add such substance since I raised the issue (only two edits since August), and I am doubtful any such rewrites would amount to enough substance to justify a standalone article from Mozart. Hence AfD. Ping: @Imran Khatun:, @Onetwothreeip:, ... but the only editor who has contributed more than 100 characters to the article's text is @Michael Bednarek:. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek (or someone else) would need to provide individual sources which show there is a dispute regarding Mozart's nationality. It's not enough to provide sources which contradict each other on his nationality. The sources themselves have to demonstrate that the question itself is relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article is Mozart's nationality, not a specific dispute as posited on the article's talk page. There have certainly been sources that discuss the question and its significance, eg Mozart and the Nazis: How the Third Reich abused a cultural icon. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be relevant to an article on Mozart's nationality. Content about how the Nazi government portrayed Mozart belongs in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture. The nationality article can only be justified by a dispute over his nationality. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you basing that assertion on? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject of the article is spelled out in the lead: "Editors of modern encyclopedias and other reference sources differ in how they assign a nationality to Mozart (if any) in light of conflicting criteria." and later, "evidence is available to support a variety of opinions about Mozart's nationality." Our German colleages at de:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Nationalität use the same rationale. The article presents those variety of opinions; whether musicologists dispute each other's assignations is neither here nor there. Those opinions find their way into popular culture (see e.g. Unsere Besten, Google Mozart Deutscher oder Österreicher) and presenting them is a legitimate subject. Placing this material in the the main Mozart article would rob it (justifiably) of the historical context and be undue there because it hasn't anything to do with WAM as a composer. In a reduced form, it would almost certainly invite unhelpful edits and create perennial instability there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only to keep these tedious explanations out of the main article. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that the article is poor and that no one has cleaned it up is no justification for deleting it. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Furius (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case people skip over my original, more detailed post of objections on the article's Talk Page which I linked, I will repost it here. None of what I wrote above is a relevant argument, just a nondescript summary.

As far as I can tell, this article seems to be entirely WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to explain or answer the question of nationality as applied to Mozart. It is not actually about the subject of the nationality of Mozart as it actually exists. An example of this would be if notable figure A says mozart is X, notable figure B says Mozart is Y, and they get into a poopstorm over it that is covered by notable source C. There are notable mentions of the politicization of Mozart's nationality -- for example, in a 2013 WP discussion User:DoctorJoeE links to a BBC story that quotes the Austrian embassy on this subject. This story is cited in the article currently, yet, bizarrely, it is done so for historical facts and not for modern politics. (Neither the ambassador nor the embassy spokesperson are specialist historians.)

This article is not justifiable in its current state. It either needs to be entirely about Mozart's nationality as a subject under significant discussion -- not simply a amalgamation of isolated blurbs from historians. Or else its scope should be expanded into a larger discussion of either the historiography for declaring the nationality of pre-Modern figures, or else the modern politics behind claiming nationalities for historical figures. Failing such change (or other suggestions you may have), I'd recommend deletion in a month or so. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

...

All the encyclopedias in the article seem to decide each edition on one thing or another. The only place in this entire article that we mention sources which actually ponder over the issue of Mozart's nationality is the final paragraph, which cites all of two scholars. From this article it seems to me that, for this eminently important historical figure who has been extensively written about from every perspective, the only writers who are devoting such extensive coverage to debate his nationality are us. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: to "ponder over the issue of Mozart's nationality" means to write much more than something like "The young German did this" or "The Austrian prodigy did that". It means to dedicate, by my minimal standards, at least one full sentence to the historical-biographical matter of national identity as claimed by the man himself, family, or any politician, historian, etc. to follow.

The reason I'm saying to delete the article rather than to merge it is because the only bits of the article that aren't SYNTH (inventing a debate or staked claim in sources which do no such thing) is as far as I can tell a single paragraph. The throwaway quotes of politicians may be worthwhile if there's further research on whether this actually matters, but in such context it is not an actual substantive debate over Mozart's nationality, but rather perhaps a notable political macguffin of Austria–Germany relations, and worth mentioning as part of Mozart's cultural influence.

Central to the problem is that the article from the beginning presents Mozart's nationality as some kind of legitimate discussion that real people actually have. Read the article and count the number of people who are actually discussing it. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes 32 and 33 (the newspaper articles) both raise the issue of Mozart's nationality, don't they? It's also discussed in this book as a matter of controversy in modern times; this book also devotes a paragraph to unpacking the issue. There is material for an article on this topic; the fact that this article uses it very badly is not a justification for deletion. 18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Furius (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as noted above, Mozart and the Nazis: How the Third Reich abused a cultural icon does this in detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"... I believe I am capable of bringing honor to any court—and if Germany, my beloved Fatherland, of which, as you know, I am proud, will not take me up—well, let France or England, in God's name become the richer by another talented German—and that to the disgrace of the German nation!"
Mozart himself describes himself as German here. this article is a great collection of sources, which all show imput for a debate or at least question, that arises in modern times with Mozart being born in a "country" no longer existing, into a collection of states which later form modern Germany for the most part, into the German culture and language sphere. we think in terms of nations today and all people of past ages are part of some national lineage. Mozart may be of two, but that should always be an information avaiable. Wikipedia is about people accumulating data for others to read. this article is all about that. deleting it would be against Wikipedia´s basic idea. BauhausFan89 (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: for the reasons above. BauhausFan89 (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SamuelRiv's argument above. This is an OR discussion of a question that interests the editor rather than an encyclopedic treatment of an actually existing debate which RS have treated as notable. I'm mystified that other editors support keeping this. Llajwa (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep|re-write Delete WP:TNT, per SamuelRiv: "There are notable mentions of the politicization of Mozart's nationality -- for example, in a 2013 WP discussion User:DoctorJoeE links to a BBC story that quotes the Austrian embassy on this subject." Being a new editor, my opinion might matter little in this discussion; however, I believe other editors may be hesitant to delete or merge this article because it is well-composed in terms of sourcing, graphical content, etc. But none of those reasons are significant to overcoming WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH claims for this article. There are isolated media references to a significance in Austria-Germany relations, and per Furius "There is material for an article on this topic; the fact that this article uses it very badly is not a justification for deletion." I disagree with keeping the article, as too much of the work is OR. But I think it should be blown up and re-written to discuss historical debate over Mozart's nationality. 22 November 2023It might be preferable if @Michael Bednarek: used a different place to backup the good original synthesis they have performed in writing this article, and instead the article re-written under WP:CLEANUP to include only such information and sources that shows there is current dispute among notable sources over Mozart's nationality, and none of the lengthy background/historical information. Then, it would be much easier to determine the amount of WP eligible content and thus determine if the article is worthy of standalone support, merging, or even deletion. That sounds like a lot of effort, though. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree - the whole point, which the article rather fails to make sufficiently clear, is that there is no "current dispute" of any significance, but there used to be one, largely motivated by political reasons. You are suggesting throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear that no one wants this in the main article on Mozart. But it also seems clear that no one is particularly excited about the article as it stands, and there are major WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns. Sure, deletion isn't cleanup, but would WP:TNT without prejudice to recreation be a useful solution in this case?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Ethnic groups, History, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AlexTheAwkward seems to believe that I was involved in writing this article. An inspection of its history shows that I contributed almost nothing. However, I do believe it's a subject that's widely covered, and thus needs an article here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fully my bad, I scrolled to the bottom of the page of revision history and there you were; for some reason, it didn't occur to me to skip to the oldest versions. I'll update my main comment tomorrow, but for now I'd like to say that I like asilvering's solution to WP:TNT the article to allow for its problems to be flushed out. I think the topic is worthy, but the original synthesis issues are too baked-in currently to revive the written article. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me see now …

Indeed so strongly do the Austrians guard the composer as one of their own that when Mozart was nominated in 2003 as one of the greatest Germans of all time in a competition organised by the German television station ZDF, the Austrian ambassador to Germany, Christian Prosl [de], protested vigourously about his inclusion

— Levi, Erik (2011). Mozart and the Nazis: How the Third Reich Abused a Cultural Icon. Yale University Press. p. 24. ISBN 9780300165814.

Walter and Nettl responded to Nazi propaganda that situated the Austrian Mozart as a symbol of German purity and greatness. […] In the face of such comments, Walter reaffirmed Mozart's Austrian (rather than German) identity […] refuting the Germans' claims that Mozart was German

— Lynch, Christopher (2020). "The Metropolitan Opera House and the 'War of Ideologies'". In Potter, Pamela M.; Baade, Christina; Marvin, Roberta Montemorra (eds.). Music in World War II: Coping with Wartime in Europe and the United States. Indiana University Press. pp. 119–120. ISBN 9780253050274.

Salzburg was not part of Austria at the time, and although Mozart spent most of his mature career in Vienna, he was really a German composer, much as Beethoven, also resident in Vienna, was a German composer. So should the Austrians celebrate Mozart as an Austrian?

— Beller, Steven (2006). A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge Concise Histories. Cambridge University Press. p. 316. ISBN 9780521478861.
  • … yes, this does seem to have been something that the world has had a bit of a debate over, last century, documented in university press books. The major problem with the article seems to be that it entirely ignores World War 2. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three options:
    • Move to What nationality would someone born in Salzburg in 1756 be?, because this is primarily an essay, not an encyclopedia article;
    • Merge selectively to main Mozart article, as most of the article does not discuss Mozart and is a discussion of the politico-cultural situation in Central Europe in the mid-18th century;
    • or Cut everything except the "Scholarly practice" section, which is the only significant part of the article which is directly relevant to the title. This is my preferred option. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, much better than any of these, leave it as it is. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, better even than that, write about the subject, which was a matter of propaganda and debate in World War 2. It's not that there isn't a subject to write about here, it's that editors have spent more time on arguing the case directly than looking for documentation about the time when the world argued the case. Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh certainly that. It was an issue over a longer period than that I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion and points made by Johnbod, Michael Bednarick, and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without objection to a Delete, a one paragraph summary with refs from Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Scholarly practice section into the main article. There does not seem to be enough material here to justify a stand alone article, this is an unneeded CFORK fleshed out with historiographic trivia and OR (eg: "The prestigious German music encyclopedia Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart lists no nationality, but this follows the policy it applies to all composers.", "Sources have sometimes changed their practice over time. The Grove dictionary did not always call Mozart "Austrian"; the designation appears to have been added with the first edition of the "New Grove" in 1980."). Merging anything more than a one paragraph summary is UNDUE (and even this is generous).  // Timothy :: talk  15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion has become more complicated than it was a week ago. Instead of editors advocating Keep and Delete, we now have those arguing that a Merge would be the best solution. So, I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can arrive at a rough consensus rather than closing this discussion as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge – This article was split from WAM's article for good reasons. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think notability has been demonstrated. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2023 (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 GoodTimes Entertainment. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse Trolls Forest of Fun and Wonder[edit]

Treehouse Trolls Forest of Fun and Wonder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For broadly the same reason as the similar Treehouse Trolls Birthday Day article was deleted recently, for failing WP:NFILM. I observe the prod contest rationale, but don't accept a reason to keep on the basis of it being someone's acting debut. I considered whether a redirect could be implemented, but could not determine a suitable target. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to GoodTimes Entertainment with a note mentioning it is Rachael Harris first contribution to the industry.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC) (NB I am the one who deproded the page back in time for that reason)[reply]
    I did consider this target as something to redirect to before raising the AfD, but I decided against it as I thought to mention this title, and not others, would be WP:UNDUE, especially as they were just the distributor of the home media. There are numerous actor/actress articles where their debut role is linked to a non-article. I don't think there can be any inherited notability on that basis. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it would be better to Delete or Redirect the article (or some other resolution).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per above.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, but no objection to a conensus delete. Fails GNG. Treehouse Trolls Birthday Day was deleted [1] and now this article is the sole entry at Treehouse Trolls, if deleted this DAB (that already doesnt dab) won't have any entries and should be deleted/redirected.  // Timothy :: talk  17:35, 4 December 2023 (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 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Rayagada[edit]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial third-party sourcing found to support the notability of the page per WP:ORG. Sohom (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Joire[edit]

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

No improvement in terms of notability since the previous AfD nomination. Of numerous refs, only 3 are not by her: two are intervierws with her (one of which which descrives her "...a technological pioneer has a diverse career behind her, during which, as one of the world's leading technology journalists..." -- oh, rlly?, another is 100% about her sexuality, hardly a claim of notability today) and one more is a brief note that she was fired without explanations. So much for WP:GNG. - Altenmann >talk 22:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lots of articles written by her for Endgadget and TechRadar, nothing about her. Delete for lack of sourcing; what's used in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sourcing in the article is mostly primary; TechCrunch is an iffy source per source toolbot. Rest aren't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On Newspapers Extended she's quoted in 2007 (re keyboards) and again in 2014 (Oakland Tribune, re Pebble product) but no SIGCOV on her. BBQboffingrill me 20:35, 29 November 2023 (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! 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray nanochemistry[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, only sources from a single author. Also this is a reinvention of established radiation effects of x-rays which have been known for decades going back to at least radiation sickness following the second world war. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --ReyHahn (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, made up as part of self-promotion, and the author (of the topic and the article) has had very serious allegations made against him and has now been fired [2]. SFC9394 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how rape allegations against the researcher are relevant to a discussion about the notability of the research. This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Kindly stick to the topic. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, thanks. SFC9394 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm already skeptical of the article since it was created by the same person who is cited in the references. As per nom, the topic also doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit an article regardless. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Self-promotion. --Srleffler (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads like an advertisement, and has serious notability concerns. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a term made up by one guy, not the distinct field that the text pretends it to be. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable.--Jasulan.T TT me 15:15, 2 December 2023 (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 Brookings Institution. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Middle East Policy[edit]

Center for Middle East Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into its parent Brookings Institution. Nothing inherently independently notable about the center that would justify a stand-alone article. The non-SPS sourcing are just 2 copy-pastes of criticism. Longhornsg (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I didn't have access to offline source provided by Grandmere Eugene. (non-admin closure)‎ 331dot (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Miquon School[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. It largely consisted of promotional text since 2018(most of which I removed). It's been marked as needing sources since 2011. My search could find nothing other than profile listings of the school or other promotional pieces. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Pennsylvania. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In general, we do not keep articles about elementary schools, and usually redirect to the local district. This topic may be the exception, being the subject of multiple articles in secondary, independent, reliable sources. I've left 14 sources on the article's talk page from newspapers.com. I have neither exhausted the sources on newspapers.com nor yet checked Proquest, but sourcing about the school's early and ongoing commitment to progressive education may qualify it for WP:GNG. (WP:ORG exempts non-profit educational institutions: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams, and this school seems to meet WP:GNG) — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Maria Paone[edit]

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

Not seeing enough reliable sources for this fellow. Only one local source covers him directly, and the small amount of articles he's written do not seem enough to meet WP:NPROF. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Romone[edit]

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find any in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Farley-Moore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, no reliable independent sources which give significant attention to him. Sources in article are not independent (e.g. this one and/or don't mention him (e.g. this or this). Fram (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and England. Fram (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found some additional sourcing (i.e. reports of appointments in the Church Times[3]) and added that to Archdeacon of Hackney, but there's no substantial coverage for Farley-Moore himself that I can find.
  • Delete Clear delete on lack of RS coverage. This one fails every measure. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's nice of the editor to create an article for his parish priest, but it clearly fails WP:NBIO. Zacwill (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Zacwill
    I created this article about the recently appointed Archdeacon of Hackney not just out of the goodness of my heart! but because it seems to me that most holders of this post (as too other similar ecclesiastical offices) feature in Wiki.
    However, apart from Who's Who (which understandably is not a favoured source), the Ven. Peter Farley-Moore appears to have done a great job of hiding any light he may (or may not) have under a bushel!
    Nonetheless, I trust that this biographical article may be kept (at least to allow enough time for Wikipedians to contribute accordingly).
    Thanking you in advance for your co-operation.
    Best Primm1234 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (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. If you want to change general precedent on how to deal with these types of articles, consider starting an RfC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel Hill tram stop[edit]

Gravel Hill tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tram stop. All the references link to the Transport for London webpage, which is a) primary, and b) not WP:SIGCOV. The content on this article feels like something more suited for Fandom. A lot of the tram stops on {{Tramlink RDT}} probably need review as well. Also, see WP:NTRAINSTATION. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 17:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tramlink with no prejudice against a single article for the route. Many transport enthusiasts get very emotional about Wikipedia articles on stations and stops, feeling that every station or stop has a right to a full article. But these articles end up as generic clones all saying the same thing, and all based on the same primary sources. This doesn't help our readers. There is a very good reason why bus companies release their timetables as a single table, not a set of slips of paper, one for each stop, each saying something along the lines of "Jones Street Bus stop is a bus stop on line 23, preceded by Ink street and followed by King's avenue, and is operated by Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses painted in a green livery. The Jones Street bus stop primarily serves passengers alighting or embarking at Jones Street and traveling to other locations that aren't Jones Street but that can also be reached by big green buses on line 23, possibly involving getting off the bus and interchanging to something else". Where a station has history, notable events, and secondary coverage, give it an article. Where it doesn't, write a single article about the entire route. Elemimele (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broader discussion needed. Many articles about Tramlink stops are similar in quality to this one and they should be discussed as a complete set. With one exception, the new-build stops were built and opened at the same time so the available sourcing is likely going to be pretty similar for all of them and the same people are going to know what exists and where to find it. Leaving this as a redlink is simply not going to happen (it's obviously a plausible search term, and afaik no AfD about a railway station or tram stop article with no verifiability issues has resulted in a "delete" outcome, only "keep", "merge" or "redirect"), so the questions are whether to merge or redirect and what the target should be, but as the only plausible targets that currently exist are Tramlink (too large to merge anything too, to high level to be useful) and List of railway stations and tram stops in Croydon (also too broad and not suitable as a merge target) a new article will need to be written (possible title: List of Tramlink stops) to contain the clearly encyclopaedic information (at minimum the opening date, location and entry/exit figures) a merge is in practice what needs to happen if the article can't be expanded (I've not looked to see what coverage not in the article already exists). However rather than having the identical discussion about the majority of the 39 stops we should have one single discussion that determines which stops have sufficient coverage for standalone articles and which don't, and what the overview article looks like. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: I like the idea, maybe it would be a good to construct a notability table of all the tram stops and depots, and then make a mass nomination. We can probably use Fandom as a starting point for List of Tramlink stops. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 21:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a broader discussion per Thryduulf. There is no situation in which deleting a single article of a tightly defined set (such as the 39 tram stops of this system) makes sense. Either all are notable (my suspicion, given the amount of public discussion that likely went into the project), or only the National Rail interchanges are notable, or only those at current/former National Rail stations (about half) are notable. But there's no reasonable possibility that only this single station is not notable, so it makes no sense to AfD it alone. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pi.1415926535: "All are notable" I doubt it. Most stops like this one are ... well ... just stops. Nothing has ever really happened to them. Would you give a bus stop an article? I have no prejudice against something like List of Tramlink stops. The exact same thing happened to London buses a few years ago - a lot of the routes were purged for not being notable and were replaced by List of bus routes in London. But yeah, I support broader discussion — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 18:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about the size of the stop; it's about whether there's sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Articles I've taken to GA include a "station" with no platform, a station with a small platform that lasted only a year, a station with nothing but bus shelters, tram stops very similar to this one, and indeed bus stops - all of which have plenty of coverage. In the modern era, planning and construction of major transit lines tends to generate sufficient press coverage that even individual tram stops often meet GNG, particularly if it goes through multiple revisions due to public pressure. I can't personally verify whether any individual Tramlink stop meets GNG - I don't have access to UK newspapers or relevant books/magazine - but I suspect that an editor with the relevant knowledge and source access could very well find sufficient coverage to pass GNG. In any case, the most important point here is that taking a single member of a defined set to AfD almost never makes sense. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Not sure why Fandom is being brought up here - Rail infrastructure is as encyclopaedic as anything else. The Tramlink articles should be discussed as a whole. Garuda3 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garuda3: This is a lot like the purge of London Bus routes. Also, you say "Rail infrastructure is as encyclopaedic as anything else". These tram stops have like no reliable sources or SIGCOV. They are not notable just because they are tramp stops, see WP:NTRAINSTATION. But yeah, I would say broader discussion is required on review. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And quite a few London bus routes have been recreated as it turned out they were notable. Garuda3 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garuda3: After doing some GNG review on the stops (feel free to contribute and correct me btw), a lot more than I thought were notable. However, there's still a decent chunk (like the London Buses) that aren't notable. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 16:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Bloodsworth Island. I targeted the specific section that discusses this character. RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil (The Walking Dead)[edit]

Virgil (The Walking Dead) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Walking Dead character, no coverage just episode summarys Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, per arguments at the other AfDs.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Saviors. I made the target the section that discusses this character. RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arat (The Walking Dead)[edit]

Arat (The Walking Dead) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Walking Dead character, no coverage just episode summarys Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, sourcing is not sufficient to justify a standalone.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge as WP:ATD. Article doesn't have WP:SIGCOV and should be part of the main topic. Editing can sort out the right amount to cover, if anything should be WP:PRESERVED at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conductive Education School, Kuwait[edit]

Conductive Education School, Kuwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page, nothing found to suggest notability criteria are met JMWt (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2023 (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) Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter England[edit]

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

Brandpromotion given the poor not reliable source Linkusyr (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep (or failing that, merge/redirect with Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail). The nominator's rationale (promotional text, poor references) are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. In my own WP:BEFORE I was able to find and add a number of additional sources (some primary but other independent and seemingly reliable). And I've removed some of the unsupported/quasi-promotional text. In honesty I can't get behind an outright "delete" recommendation (certainly not based on the rationale given in the nom). Guliolopez (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With added sources, I agree with keeping the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the oldest clothing brands in India having multiple references on reliable sources. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Dalai60 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Sayyed[edit]

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

Article's entire contents are ten words, backed up by ten references in which this activist is mentioned in passing in nine, and not at all in one. All of the coverage provided is in relation to a group of southeast Asian fishermen stranded on a ship unable to dock in the UAE. All that I can tell from the nine passing mentions is that Ms. Sayyed is a social worker acting as a spokesperson for the stranded workers. I'm normally a critic of the "no claim of significance" speedy deletion criteria but I don't know why Ritchie333 declined this one. It also was created by a sockpuppet known for repeatedly recreating biographies of non-notable people, who already reverted draftification. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a procedural note, I declined the A7 because the article had citations to multiple sources, some of which name-checked the subject in the title. I don't have any strong views on whether the article should be kept or deleted; indeed AfD is probably the right thing to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I also noticed those name-checking sources when I was writing this up. I had in my mind that it was more than one but the only one I see now is Unpaid Indian workers in Kuwait get help, thanks to social worker Shaheen Sayyed, and even that doesn't really go into much detail other than saying she supported the workers. But here's something interesting: that article opens with text describing a government minister meeting with the workers, who were carrying placards saying that the only person helping them was Shaheen Sayyed. Another article titled Kuwait social worker a messiah for scores opens with identical text, and also uses that text as a teaser, and that article still doesn't give her much significant coverage. Were those two articles written from provided copy, i.e. a press release meant to promote the cause or raise the profile of the activist? Did they hire this editor to write them a promotional Wikipedia bio? I don't know, but it's certainly suspicious, especially given this sockfarm's history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the cited references is substantial coverage of her. (Incidentally, I can see that the presence of multiple references mentioning her name could perhaps be balanced against the lack of a claim of significance in the article, and that there may be a case for letting that be taken into consideration when reviewing an A7 nomination, but when none of those references does much more than barely mention her, I find "obvious decline A7" (my emphasis) a surprising edit summary.) JBW (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd cut Ritchie some slack on that. A7 is perhaps the tag most frequently used inappropriately, and I'm probably guilty of similarly snarky removal summaries too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JBW User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has further information, including the reasons for creating the criteria in the first place. Incidentally, those reasons, to stop unregistered users creating articles like "Joel Snodgrass is the principal of Podunk High School, Idaho. He specialises in teaching math." were stopped anyway by preventing IPs from creating articles in late 2005 following the Wikipedia biography controversy, and the further when non-confirmed editors stopped being able to create them in 2018, following this RfC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, User:Ritchie333. I have some more thoughts about this, which I will post on your talk page. JBW (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Putting aside the sock and likely UPE activity, I evaluated for notability alone. The references on the page simply mention here with others and do not go into depth. I found this in a search which talks more about here in-depth, but it isn't independent as it is full of quotes and says in the intro "in a conversation with" which indicates the majority of the content was supplied by her. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find links to a site called the "Logical Indian" via Gnews, unsure if it's a RS. That's about all there is for this person. Unless the Logical Indian is a RS, it's a delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Marigold[edit]

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

Article about a novel, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for novels. This is written principally in-universe, without showing much evidence of real-world significance -- the attempted notability claim is that it was a "Canadian independent bestseller", but that's sourced only to an informal list personally compiled by a writer for a single minor literary magazine, which undermines its own reliability with an "I acknowledge that this list is not at all perfect. It is only a small sampling of the data out there" warning, and thus isn't a notability-making bestseller list.
The only other source cited here is a single book review, which is fine but not enough all by itself -- even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source.
Additionally, it warrants note that the author doesn't have a WP:BLP at all -- and while that isn't a speedy deletion criterion for books in the same way that it is for musical albums whose artists don't have articles, it does still raise the question of how the book can be notable enough to warrant an article if its author isn't.
There just isn't anything here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this novel from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's really hard to assess books because the publishing industry contains as many publicists as it does publishers. No book is released in print without, behind the scenes, the publishers going to a lot of trouble to arrange interviews with anyone likely to publicise the author, wangle reviews wherever they can, and do everything possible to raise the book's profile. It's really hard to sift through the large quantity of Google hits on this book and work out which are truly independent, which not. In a way, I'm sceptical about articles on books, and feel that they are only warranted if a book has sustained coverage. We will probably only know whether a book is truly notable a couple of years after it appears. And it seems odd that we consider deleting The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse which is still on sale (in multiple formats including audio books) more than 100 years after it was written, because a Google search can't find reviews (ummm... there wasn't an internet when it would have been reviewed...) while possibly keeping this one, because it has got reviews, having been born in the publicity/internet age. I almost feel we should have a near-moratorium on books (and films!) that have just been released, but getting a Wikipedia article is now a standard part of the publicity expected by the industry. Elemimele (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - changed per Oaktree b, and added the citations to the article, albeit in bulk form. Still needs cleanup, but not deletion. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's had coverage in the Globe and Mail [5], then in the CBC [6] and here (but I think it's the same review as the first one, reworded and reprinted [7]. Here's one more from CBC [8] and the Toronto Star [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant House Toronto[edit]

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

Only organization's own website is quoted; no other significant sources were found nor added. Should be removed (W:NCORPT) Linkusyr (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2023 (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! 07:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Osman[edit]

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

Has had some success, but other than the Times review doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Sudan, Lebanon, England, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - she has changed her name to Sam Hepburn and written more books since the one book that had been identified in the article at the time of the nomination. I am continuing to conduct research, but have been able to add a review from The Telegraph, and generally expand the article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the expansions I made, there appears to be some support for WP:AUTHOR#3 notability based on reviews for her children's/young adult novels. Her debut novel was reviewed in the Financial Times, The Telegraph, and The School Librarian, and apparently The Times or Times Literary Supplement (the link is not working in the article, or from her archived website, and only an abstract is available on ProQuest); another novel has reviews from The School Librarian and BookTrust, and another novel is reviewed by The School Librarian. As to her later works, I did not find reviews to support notability, and none are listed on her official website. There is also a source she wrote on Writing.ie, which includes reference to a news article and supports some biographical information; I have not yet searched for coverage of her journalism/documentary filmmaking career, but there may be further sources available. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems ok with the explanation given above. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Close call, but agree with explanation the article meets requirements and should stay. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to project space‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Regional Conferences[edit]

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

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. The one cited source is nowhere near enough coverage to establish notability, and searches have found no further coverage in reliable independent sources. JBW (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These Regional Conferences are taking place in different parts of the world and in different dates, so thus far I have not come across any reputable news publication that can be cited written about Wikimedia Regional conferences as a collective. However, I do know that each conference has a news publication about it which can be used as citation.
Bobbyshabangu talk 10:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wouldn't this benefit as an item in Wikipedia space rather than mainspace? – The Grid (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. No opinion on whether or not this should be in the Wikipedia: space. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, note that none of the source cited in the article actually mentioned the subject. NM 05:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Project space. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 29 November 2023 (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 Rutgers University. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BioMaPS Institute for Quantitative Biology[edit]

BioMaPS Institute for Quantitative Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Does not seem to be a good reason to consider it notable outside of Rutgers University, so possibly a merge is appropriate as AtD JMWt (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 27 November 2023 (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 14:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamaria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy-delete (G11)‎ (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Sidharth Oberoi[edit]

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

Article seems to be purely promotional, not a biography at all. Mostly a description of his company LetsShave AriTheHorse 14:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for CSD. AriTheHorse 14:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The reasons given for keeping are "Subject is notable", "The subject of the article is obviously notable"; both without any indication why; "A notable social media personality who is mentioned in the same breathe as MrBeast, Patrick Bet-David, Dan Bilzerian, Dixie D'Amelio, Paul Logan, etc", but notability is not inherited from other notable people merely because one is mentioned together with them (I am sure I have sometimes been mentioned in the same sentence as notable people, but I am not notable); "Notable as an online personality and influencer and falls into that category"; "The subject seems notable enough", again without any indication why; "His online presence alone is good enough for a Wikipedia page"; I am not personally the greatest fan of the current notability guidelines, and I think there is a case for including "online presence" in the guidelines, but at present that is not so; "His notability is uncontestable", well, several people have contested it; "Coupled with the businesses he founded", which I can only assume means that we should regard notability as inherited from a business ot its founder, but we don't; "Page should stay", again without any indication why. Not a single one of those addresses Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so we have no policy compliant reasons for "keep" at all. JBW (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Gadzhi[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE, or WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the sources are all these three things at the same time: (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, (3) in-depth in terms of coverage. The person may have had some unspecified roles in some productions (World's Greatest Social Stars, Top 25!, etc.) but there is no evidence that these are significant productions and there is no evidence that these were significant roles. There is some coverage of a thing associated with the subject called "monk mode". Coverage of that is not meaningful in terms of sources useful for establishing notability either. The person has not made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" and is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". His YouTube channel, TikTok and other online presences are not encyclopedically relevant at all. —Alalch E. 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: Sure, I have seen the Gadzhi's social media content, and they are undeniably very well known. In spite, it does not really meet WP:N due to the reliable sources. Maybe draftify is the best option here. Seems like a fan made page, but I respect it!
Infomemoh (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: The article can be improved upon. Subject is notable. Wallclockticking (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the paid editor who created the article. —Alalch E. 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Paid editor? Let us use such labels lightly please. I don't even know the subject of the article and I won't take such disrespect from you. Be guided. Wallclockticking (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes you are a paid editor, and a terrible one! Iman can not and will not just buy his way into getting a Wikipedia page. Sorry 2601:589:4E00:BE40:B530:8AFE:23E7:A3B5 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This post is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks which clealy states "No accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". Wallclockticking (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the paid editor who created the article LMAOOOOOOOO 2601:589:4E00:BE40:9123:9291:D92A:76E6 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I nominated this last go round... Same reasons apply. I'll also mention that source 10 is patently false, the person's name doesn't appear at all in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the author meant to link to this article [10], which is a first person retelling of the interview, so not really helping sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sources 20 and 21 are tours of his house, but mostly photo captions to social media reposts. Not helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your time and comments. I will do my best to implement any advice I get from here. I really dont want the article deleted, it will hurt me so much. Wallclockticking (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not personal, it's wiki-business, to coin a phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: The subject of the article is obviously notable. The only issue I found out when going through the page is that the editor is still new and isn’t very conversant with Wikipedia guidelines yet. Amaekuma (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject could be notable, yes, but there are no sources that discuss him at length, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As your bio points out "This user recognizes the importance of citing sources." Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen you try to throw around your weight around because I am a new editor. You are trying to intimidate me. You will fail. Wallclockticking (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A notable social media personality who is mentioned in the same breathe as MrBeast, Patrick Bet-David, Dan Bilzerian, Dixie D'Amelio, Paul Logan, etc. Notable as an online personality and influencer and falls into that category. I think some people have a perchant for avoiding the media and keep a lowkey lifestyle. But that doesn't mean they are less notable. Laurengoldstreet (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide extensive sourcing for the individual. Mentioned with others doesn't confer notability on this person. He can be as lowkey as he wants, with proper sourcing, anything can have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as first deletion, not enough has been done to demonstrate notability Nswix (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The subject seems notable enough. I rather say every other person can help improve this article to put it in its best state possible. Onosco23 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another WP:ITSNOTABLE comment. This commenter with 61 edits participated in this obscure AfD that resulted in a crypto spam page being deleted. He recommended keeping saying it can be worked upon in order to improve its quality. —Alalch E. 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It most certainly could, but the commenter should provide sourcing examples to help the discussion here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reason: His online presence alone is good enough for a Wikipedia page. His notability is uncontestable. Coupled with the businesses he founded. Page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdhoul 138 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, his notability is uncontestable, how did I fail to notice this... sheesh, I really need to remember to refer to the list of uncontestably notable influencers every time I start an AfD. —Alalch E. 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Wallclockticking (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we are contesting the notability, I'd ask Abdhoul above to provide better sources than what we currently have, which are not very helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Wallclockticking (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Review of the sources shows virtually nothing reliable, or in-depth. Note: source 11 is an WP:RS, but makes no mention of the subject. I see nothing encyclopaedic here; potentially a candidate for salt. ResonantDistortion 23:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"How Is This 21-Year-Old Entrepreneur Making Millions On YouTube ?". MYCOMEUP Magazine. 2021-04-26. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content No blog No promotional content ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi - From High School Drop Out To Founder Of The World's Largest Education Company". Inspiring Startups. 2020-07-01. Retrieved 2023-11-18. No looks like sponsored content; interview No blog of one invividual with it being possible that some content is by anonymous authors No interview and promotional content, including the preposterous claim that he is the "founder of the world's largest education company" ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi: Joe Rogan Wannabe Or Future Industry Disrupter?". Sir Thorney. 2022-09-01. Retrieved 2023-11-23. Yes No personal blog of "George (Sir Thorney)", an online marketing professional who started a bathroom decor brand. ~ bit harder to evaluate this source on whether it consists of promotion ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi Shares His Incredible Story Of Making $25 Million By 22 And Building 5 Schools In Nepal". OK Magazine. 2022-09-25. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content No tabloid-type source, article "By:OK! Staff", no evidence of editorial oversight No promotional content ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi (@realimangadzhi) Official". TikTok. Retrieved 2023-11-18. No self No No ✘ No
"Meet Iman Gadzhi: Millionaire Agency Owner". Grow Your Agency. 2019-03-04. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No self No No ✘ No
"The Journey of Iman Gadzhi: A Blueprint for a Sigma Male". Eternobody Fitness. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content No advertisement No promotional content ✘ No
"How To Sign A Client With Iman Gadzhi". MYCOMEUP Magazine. 2021-08-23. Retrieved 2023-11-22. No looks like sponsored content; interview No purely promotional website No promotional content ✘ No
"Youtuber Iman Gadzhi Shares 7 Ways to Make $10,000 A Month In 2023". Tlux Media. 2023-02-07. Retrieved 2023-11-19. No looks like sponsored content No marketing agency No promotional content / advertisement ✘ No
"What Is The 'Monk Mode' Trend On TikTok?". Indy100. Yes No tabloid-type churnalism platform of The Independent (sad) No no significant coverage of the subject (only a mention) ✘ No
"The People Going 'Monk Mode' To Limit Social Media Use". BBC News. 2023-10-01. Retrieved 2023-11-23. Yes Yes No no mention of the subject ✘ No
"I'm a CEO Who Tried 'Monk Mode' After Seeing It On TikTok. It Took A Month To Get Used To But Now My Productivity Is 5 Times Better". Business Insider. Retrieved 2023-11-23. Yes ~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER; interview with another individual ("This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Josh Wood, the 32-year-old CEO and founder of the tech hospitality company Bloc, ..."), not reliable for claims about Gadzhi No no significant coverage of the subject (only a mention) ✘ No
World's Greatest Social Stars! Top 25 (TV Series 2015–2020) 6.8 | Reality-TV, retrieved 2023-11-19 ~ can't know No WP:IMDB No ✘ No
"Iman Gadzhi's Filmography (Internet Celeb, Actor, Entrepreneur)". Iman Gadzhi Filmography. Retrieved 2023-11-19. No self No No ✘ No
Kings of the Internet (TV Series 2022– ) 4.7 | Action, News, Reality-TV, retrieved 2023-11-19 ~ can't know No WP:IMDB No ✘ No
"Wie is Iman Gadzhi? - The Ecom Agency". theecomagency.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2023-11-19. No looks like sponsored content No marketing agency No promotional content ("So Iman Gadzhi is not only committed to his own success, but he also strives to help others succeed and have a positive impact on the world. His philanthropic efforts make him an inspiring figure that goes beyond just the business aspect of his career.") ✘ No
"'Cape Town Is SO cheap, I struggle To Spend $30k a month,' Says Russian Tycoon, Iman Gadzhi". CapeTalk. Retrieved 2023-11-18. ~ could be sponsored content No CapeTalk is a mainstream South African radio station, but their website is not very journalistic to put it mildly, with clickbait titles and no indication of editorial oversight No brief retelling of Gadzhi's video content with hardly any original insight, analysis or critique ✘ No
"Unveiling Iman Gadzhi's Luxurious $10,800 Home Gym". Gym Nirvana. 2023-11-15. Retrieved 2023-11-19. No looks like sponsored content No advertising platform run by an anonymous operator No promotional content ✘ No
"LOOK: Russian tycoon says he STRUGGLES to spend R500k per month in Cape Town". The South African. 2022-10-03. Retrieved 2023-11-18. Yes ~ this website is a mainstream South African online WP:NEWSORG, but not all of their articles are journalistic and many are tabloid-like; this article calls Gadzhi a "Russian tycoon" which is obviously false No churnalism; retelling of Gadzhi's video content relating to cost of living in South Africa; the article does not center on Gadzhi as such ✘ 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}}.
—Alalch E. 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created a table and indicated whatever he could conjour up in his biased mind and called it assessment. Trying to intimidate amd sway votes because you have spent more time on Wikipedia is a Putin and Mugabe like behavior. Wallclockticking (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand and respect that it is detrimental to Wikipedia's goals of being a free online encyclopedia that acts a source of knowledge, and therefore needs to remain credible, to allow pages like the one you've created here to be allowed to remain a part of the encyclopedia. —Alalch E. 18:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respect Wikipedia's goals acting as a source of free knowledge, and stop complaining that you aren't most gonna get paid for getting your devious under the table job done to attempt to create a Wikipedia page for undisclosed payments. :))) @Wallclockticking 2601:589:4E00:BE40:9123:9291:D92A:76E6 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' - I smell socks and meat and recommend salting if page is deleted as this is just a sign that someone will attempt to recreate it despite any consensus here. That aside, nom is correct about notability. The references are not in-depth about the subject or otherwise unreliable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Andrews[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAD as his only win came in non notable Junior tournament. Also, there is nothing significant about this person when searching about him in Google, which makes him fail WP:GNG as well. zoglophie•talk• 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorwa Ashawari[edit]

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

Non-notable singer, not a winner of any show. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luiza Toshmetova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject seemingly made a single appearance for her national team. I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at all, nor is there any indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, no sigcov to speak of. However, I am concerned that you only seem to be submitting AfDs (like at least 1 a day!) for women footballers. Wikipedia's gender gap is bad enough as it is. Are you using women's football categories to find articles to suggest for deletion? If so, please consider the possible unintended negative consequences of this. Akakievich (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Hey there. I am very aware of the gender gap and understand how my actions may come across. To be frank, I am clearing obvious GNG fails from a single editor who created thousands of two- or three-sentence stubs before WP:NSPORT2022, when a requirement was put in place for sports bios to have "at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject." I have done this to a couple of editors who created non-notable stubs en masse, and I nominate up to five a day, but this specific user was especially prolific and happened to focus on women's footballers. I try to add SIGCOV when I find it (1, 2, 3, 4), but it's not often. JTtheOG (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clearing that up! If you're targetting non-notable stubs by a single editor, that sounds fine to me. Just wanted to ask the question since you do sometimes see people claiming good faith while evidently using all-female categories (or categories related to a single nationality, sexual orientation, etc etc) as deletion hitlists and I couldn't figure out the pattern behind your deletion work. thanks for the quick reply :) Akakievich (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get the gender bias issues, but non-notable articles are what they are, so no reason keeping them around just to score points on a gender parity scale. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's ok to subject articles about women to more thorough scrutiny than those about men. It is a fact of life that some non-notable articles will remain on Wikipedia, so it does matter how we go about finding and deleting those articles. Akakievich (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can only vote on what's presented to me. Cleaning up wiki is never a bad thing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said otherwise. Notice I voted delete before I even asked the question about JTtheOG's strategy (which in this case imo is completely fine and has no bias problems) – in any case, a non-notable subject is a non-notable subject and the article should be deleted. But lots of positive, small-scale actions CAN have an unintended, detrimental _large-scale_ impact.
Therefore I do think it is worth just asking, because it would allow us to alert a well-meaning user to the possible negative consequences of their actions (if they're unaware) or discuss/monitor/mitigate the larger-scale impacts if they refuse to change their approach. Basically, I think male and female subjects should be treated the same on Wikipedia, and currently that's usually but not always the case. On this AfD there's no problem though, as we have already established :) so I don't see the point in discussing this further, I think we mostly agree and any remaining points we disagree on won't affect anything practical. All the best, Akakievich (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2023 (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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23 as creation by sockpuppet of blocked user.‎‎ --Annh07 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kourage Beatz NSI (producer)[edit]

Kourage Beatz NSI (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have draftified this article earlier because all of the references in the article are unreliable sources (user-generated sources). If self-generated sources are eliminated, the article is not supported by any reliable source at all. Additionally, I and another user (Afí-afeti) removed some false information from the article (not supported by any source). The author moved the draft to the mainspace again without any improvement in source quality. A WP:BEFORE search did not provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Annh07 (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. ✗plicit 12:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elvina Djaferova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject seemingly made a single appearance for the team. I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at all, nor is there any indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Myanmar women's international footballers. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuper Khine[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Myanmar women's international footballers. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no evident of WP:SIGCOV found. Suggest a Redirect instead to Myanmar women's national football team#Players which might be more narrowly relevant than the suggested redirect. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Bernadette Caroline[edit]

Death of Bernadette Caroline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sad story, but no indication that this is actually a notable event with any WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and seems unlikely to get more traction. Fram (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wassila Alouache[edit]

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

The subject, an Algerian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing I found in my searches was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Bill characters#Senior officers. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Smith (The Bill)[edit]

Dale Smith (The Bill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Bill characters#Senior officers. Spinixster (chat!) 08:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guybrush Threepwood[edit]

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

A video game character that sadly fails WP:GNG. Reception is based on listicles and passing mentions; only one reference mentions him in the title ([11] from Kotaku, and while the source is reliable, the coverage is very brief and relates to his inclusion as a guest character in another game). This trivia about his name from a similar and seemingly non-notable outlet (TheGamer on Wikidata, no Wikipedia articles about this werbsite) is not very helpful, either. Scholarly sources (GScholar) are just passing mentions. A minor academic article mentions him in the title ([12]) but fails to discuss him in any serious length. Ditto for this student thesis (I can't tell if this is master or below, seems to be just a course project?), and then we get even weaker sources, none of which sadly seems to have even a shred of usuable analysis. I'd be happy to be proven wrong (one of the early games in the series was one of my first video games, growing up...) but unless we can't find good sources, the best WP:ATD-R I can think of would be a redirect to the Monkey Island (series) that he is the main character of. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems to me the "Self-reflexivity and humor in adventure games" was in Game Studies, a conventional scholarly journal, and can therefore be considered reliable. Daranios (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Y'arr, this article may be taking on water and be loaded with sources more rotten than old fish, but it shouldn't be forced to walk the plank. With my spyglass, I spotted significant coverage from Good Game, a reliable source! Furthermore, there is additional coverage in H'arrrrdcore Gaming 101, with an entire paragraph describing his character. The additional two page spread in Retro Game'arrr demonstrates that Guybrush is more notable than Shanty Pete's beard! I suggest hoisting the mainsail and making for Rewrite Island. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm The last source seems fine, but the first reads like gibberish (even if it is reliable, I can't see how it can be useful) and is the second one reliable? Not much there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a consensus that HG101 is reliable, with the article having been written by Kurt Kalata himself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference is not gibberish - it very much appears to be a tribute to the GT character in the form of a parody of This Is Your Life. Counts towards WP:GNG in my view, if the source is reliable. ResonantDistortion 19:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the most amusing AFD !vote I've seen in a while. :D BOZ (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per...um...Zx? That said some of the sourcing in the article is good too but very underutilized: it's focusing on the ranking than what's being said, and I feel that could definitely help turn around things if they're fleshed out while any weaker sources are removed. Couple that with the findings above and it should be able to stand on its own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pinning me colours to the mast o' the sources plundered by cap'n ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. ResonantDistortion 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources used in the reception section seem to be considered reliable for video games topics, so I see no reason to discount them just because many of them are in list format. Together with the sources found by Zxcvbnm and me, there is enough non-plot (and plot) material to write a reasonable article in my view. Daranios (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources have been identified giving significant coverage, so the general notability guidelines are met. Dream Focus 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is convincing coverage that passes WP:SIGCOV here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Fine, fine, I don't want to walk the plank. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2023 (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 Charles Wriothesley. ✗plicit 12:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wriothesley's Chronicle[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. I personally would prefer a merge to Charles Wriothesley, but given that the apparent lack of independent notability makes this an appropriate venue, I felt it would be more effective to take it here than directly propose a merge. Plus, this way anyone who actually wants it deleted can have a voice. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Davis (musician)[edit]

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

Successful musician who worked with notable people, but I couldn't establish that he himself was notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oratory Athenaeum for University Preparation[edit]

Oratory Athenaeum for University Preparation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear that RS exist that show the subject meets the level of notability for inclusion on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only 1 primary source provided. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NHSCHOOL and GNG overall since no secondary sources or independent analysis seem to exist. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (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. After several relists, consensus has tended towards deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fable[edit]

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

I'm not sure this passes NSINGER as written, and I can't turn up any new sources to push this over the edge – Fstoppers is the only secondary decently-reliable source with some amount of SIGCOV, but most of the meat of this article is sourced to interviews, most not in RSes. Yes, Fable has been involved with two charting singles, but "featured artist" and "co-writer" mean he's not really the primary artist credited with the charting – I don't think that guarantees notability against a fail of GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2. I do note that the Official Charts Company credits Venbee and Fable as equals, so I've amended the article to that effect.--Launchballer 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay, here's my question on this: how come WP:NSONG says that charting on a national chart makes the song maybe notable, but it automatically confers notability to the ~artist? even WP:MUSICBIO says those criteria don't automatically grant notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO states that subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may". dxneo (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cited sources are mostly passing mentions just like here and here, although they are credited as a primary artist on a charting song, there's no SIGCOV and a WP:BLP cannot be based on a charting song. I see here that the subject was/is signed to UMG and they would pass #5 per WP:MUSICBIO if they released at least two albums under the label but unfortunately they don't even have one. here is another two paragraph source about the subject releasing a new song. I think it's TOOSOON, maybe if they have a certified record or have been nominated for award(s) then yes they would definitely have an argument but I couldn't find any of that. Again WP:MUSICBIO states that the subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may", subject never headlined any RS news, I don't think that "may" applies here. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on his 2 charting tracks, which meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria.Royal88888 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal88888, "two" charting tracks? Which and which? Care to provide sources please? dxneo (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted my vote in good faith based on the content of the article. Read it and you will see his chart rankings mentioned. I have not verified the sources, but they are posted in the article if you read it. Royal88888 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal88888, we have all read the article that's why it is here now. The second song on the lead statement is NOT his song, next time please do a research before voting, or at least leave a "comment" instead of "keep" or "delete". dxneo (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo I stick with my vote. I re-read it. Co-writing a song and having credits is just as good for meeting WP:MUSICBIO terms, as there is nothing in guidelines suggesting otherwise. The guidelines apply to musicians also, not just artists. Royal88888 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: an IP closed as keep. It seemed suspicious, so I reverted it, but if consensus is that it's valid, i'm happy to let it stand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On one of the singles ("Low Down"), the subject is indeed a performer, meeting even a tight reading of the SNG. Criterion 2, met here, is straightforward and held at the same level as criterian 1, which is effectively a phrasing of GNG targeted toward musical acts. As always, we'd need some clear evidence that we're unable to write an encyclopedia article on the subject to override the presumption of notability that a notability guideline provides. Reviewing the sources in the article, there's enough verifiable information to summarize to create a start class or better article, so I see no reason not to use the guideline. —siroχo 08:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: dxneo and siroxo's contributions require further exploration to assess which is the more persuasive in this situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Source analysis indicates that the notability of the subject is at best borderline. I am unable to find a truly secondary source that's independent, reliable and of significant coverage, except for the fstoppers piece. Many of the sources here are primary sources (be it interviews or song listings).
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ascap.com/repertory#/ace/search/workID/919021704?page=1 ~ Database relies on submissions by songwriters and composers Yes Submissions are somewhat vetted/reconciled by two separate systems Being a listing of works of the subject, sigcov is not applicable here ? Unknown
https://iamur.one/carving-out-grooves-with-dan-fable/ No Article is an interview in QnA format ? Unknown editorial process. Site is of "a small team of volunteers who are passionate about music" (sic) Yes Sole subject. ✘ No
https://fstoppers.com/business/how-does-british-photographer-make-profit-shooting-ps100-music-videos-193776 Yes Although it is an interview. The bulk of the article is in prose form. Yes thus far there isn't much of an issue with fstoppers as a videography/photography source. written by a staff writer as well Yes primary subject with work about the cheap music video shoot ✔ Yes
https://www.nme.com/features/music-interviews/venbee-messy-in-heaven-goddard-interview-pinkpantheress-radar-3340236 No Interview QnA Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.clashmusic.com/features/i-do-my-best-and-it-seems-to-work-clash-meets-venbee/ No Interview. QnA style Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/62437/venbee/ Yes Yes No song listing ✘ No
https://ukf.com/words/we-need-to-talk-about-venbee/35869 No Interview. QnA Yes No Not the primary subject ✘ No
https://www.withguitars.com/dan-fable-delivers-poignant-alt-indie-gem-one-punch-tommy/ ? Feels like a press release rewrite Yes ? Unknown
https://readdork.com/news/dan-fable-single-one-punch-tommy/ Yes Yes No Short blurb. ✘ No
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcd43a8d-2951-4626-a5e1-ab918ded72eb/episodes/2548642a-6ddc-4945-8b0c-c2777198ba23/pretendship-diss-content-pretendship-ep-83-w-dan-fable No interview. podcast. ? ✘ 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}}.
– robertsky (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky: WithGuitars purports to have a team of writers including "a few former national editors of indie, alternative, and rock magazine titles" and John Robb.--Launchballer 01:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I didn't mark the site down for reliability. The issue of this piece of article is that though it is long, the only fact there that's cited for is in the first sentence that's also the first paragraph. The second paragraph is a mainly a quote from the subject, either from an interview or from a press material. The third is about the singer, but in the context of the release of the EP, feels promotional. Hence the ? from me. – robertsky (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any response to source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The source analysis still stands; GNG is not met. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated source table, covering additions up to 3 Dec:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010jf2g Yes Yes No Going through the programme page and listening to the available episodes at random, it seems that each episode is cramped with different songs with very brief introduction each. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014k8wd Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p017mb0b Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.allmusic.com/album/zero-experience-mw0004120039 No No iirc, allmusic is considered as WP:UGC No ✘ No
https://www.musicweek.com/publishing/read/north-west-songs-launches-with-roster-including-dan-fable-sekou-no-guidnce-and-daniel-avery/087248 Yes Yes No Feels like a press release rewrite of the company the subject is signed to. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qrsj Yes Yes No 60 minutes of playback of dozens of songs... ✘ No
https://www.musicweek.com/interviews/read/hitmakers-dan-fable-tells-the-story-behind-his-and-venbee-s-dnb-hit-messy-in-heaven/088033 No Interview No Yes ✘ No
https://www.ascap.com/repertory#/ace/writer/1083501581/NEWMAN%20DANIEL%20GEORGE ~ Database relies on submissions by songwriters and composers Yes seems to be vetted, as asserted by the website ? List of works ? Unknown
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}}.
My !vote still stands. – robertsky (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2023 (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 Essential Records (Christian). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Beeson[edit]

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

From an initial reading of this article, I was surprised it had been in CAT:NN for over 13 years, as it seemed notable. However, I couldn't find sources at the level I was looking for to source a BLP when I tried to find some to add. Possible redirect to Essential Records. Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More work needs to be done on this article and I suggest that it is redirected to the sandbox for it to be polished from there.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't understand what is meant by "redirected to the sandbox" as a resolution to this discussion. Which sandbox? Articles are typically redirected to target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 27 November 2023 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Maclean, 1st Laird of Brolas[edit]

Donald Maclean, 1st Laird of Brolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little more than a genealogical entry, based essentially on one book, A History of the Clan MacLean ..., written by a Maclean, hence failing MacBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (the 3rd Laird of Torloisk has a second genealogical book reference, also written by a Maclean):

Lauchlan Maclean, 2nd Laird of Brolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Donald Maclean, 3rd Laird of Brolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lachlan Og Maclean, 1st Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hector Maclean, 2nd Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lachlan Maclean, 3rd Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Donald Maclean, 5th Laird of Torloisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Dubh Maclean, 1st Laird of Morvern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ewen Maclean, 9th Laird of Ardgour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Scotland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 2009 output of an editor with extremely problematic understanding of sourcing, these do not meet WP:NOTGENEALOGY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/merge Arguments for deletion are A) only one source, but the ones I've looked at have more than one. B) The last name of the author is the same as the BIO topic. C) The author of the articles had significant issues with notability, which is not a reason for deletion. Things appear to meet WP:N and no accurate and policy/guideline based rule has been given and at least some of the articles appear to meet WP:N. That said, merging topics by the area they were Laird of would be a reasonable way forward. Or into an article on such areas. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal. BIO isn't a "policy/guideline"? Also, I don't know which articles you've been looking at, but - as I stated - only one has a second (dubiuous) source, and both being written by Macleans implies that they're not neutral/independent. I've removed one entry, as I didn't notice that the 2nd Laird represented his shire. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • [13] has three sources. And I don't think being a descendent of someone from 400 years ago makes John_Patterson_MacLean a non-independent author. I did miss the link to WP:BIO due to the (fairly amusing, I will admit) joke, my fault. Still, I tend to believe that 100s year old historical figures should have a much lower bar for inclusion and I stick by the notion that merging folks by area they were laird of would be a fine way forward. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- While I have only checked the primary article nominated, I see nothing in this but genealogical info. I see no substantial reason to object to the one source for COI or as a non-RS. However Bio-articles need to record what a person has done, not merely that they existed and had relatives. Being a laird is not a title of nobility, only gentry. My reason for deletion is that the subject is NN. Possibly the subjects could be listed in the articles on the places of which they were lairds. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 27 November 2023 (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) asilvering (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Travis McGee[edit]

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

The arguments against this page had been listed in April 2022 at Talk:John D. MacDonald#Merger Proposal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As proposed, this doesn't work. The only argument listed (as a request to merge) is that the current article is just fancruft not up to wikipedia's standards, so presumably the intention is delete-and-redirect, not merge (hence being brought here instead?). I agree that there's too much fan-cruft trivia in the article, which should be trimmed. But this is the title character of a major series by a highly notable author. I'd be surprised if the subject isn't notable, and there is a case for arguing that if the article's got a load of rubbish in it, clean it up rather than deleting. Elemimele (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As one of the major post-war private eye characters, he should be notable. But the article needs a lot of work. I know I've read non-MacDonald works that write about the McGee character, but WP:MUSTBESOURCES is meaningless. I'm going to put the effort into finding these sources, and using them to improve the article. Or at least I'll try... Madam Fatal (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep A quick search found three possible sources, including Beacham's popular fiction in America, Journal of American Culture, and Private eyes : one hundred and one knights : a survey of American detective fiction, 1922-1984 - two journals and a book. I haven't (yet) been able to read more than an excerpt from each, but all appear to be discussing McGee himself, not MacDonald. Madam Fatal (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Character is notable on his own. Merge would be insufficient. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that hasn't been demonstrated in the article. 23 books and a film, it seems focus on the character is spread out over the articles. – The Grid (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm finding scholarly articles that analyze the character in depth. I was able to access "From Rebel to Reactionary: Class and the Politics of Travis McGee" which is purely about interpreting the character across the novels. A google scholar search also turns up all kinds of promising (but non-digitized) articles with names like "Travis McGee as Traditional Hero," "The Reluctant Hero: Reflections on Vocation and Heroism in the Travis McGee Novels of John D. MacDonald," "Travis McGee-Chauvinism or Chivalry?", "Travis McGee, Tarnished Knight in Modern Armor." (The first few pages of gscholar results are mostly the books themselves, but keep going.) These articles promise an overall analysis of the character, not just the series. The article itself would benefit from some serious pruning but the character looks independently notable to me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Renewables[edit]

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

No refs on the page, not clear what sources could exist to show that a trade body was notable and met the standards of en.wiki JMWt (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are sources which provide basic verification of this industry body, for example the text of the First Minister's speech at their conference (Scottish Govt 25/1/23), quotes and advocacy by the organisation's officials BBC 17/10/23, Insider 19/10/23. What I'd like to see, though, is assessment coverage about Scottish Renewables itself. AllyD (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 27 November 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chino Sing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - the sources on the page are not reliable and citing the own artists' website is not reliable. Réunion! 10:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Seems likely to be notable via WP:MUSICBIO#C2 and #C8, but not much in the article is verifiable at the moment. —siroχo 07:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 27 November 2023 (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. This result can be undone as soon as sources come forward. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Hyok-chol (footballer, born 1991)[edit]

Ri Hyok-chol (footballer, born 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 27 November 2023 (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 sources located 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6AQ5[edit]

6AQ5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for an extended period of time with no evident basis for notability. Present sourcing are all PRIMARY. Formerly a PROD; dePROD was on grounds that the EL90 guise of this type was notable but there is no statement toward notability present in article. Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All primary sources with no mention of why this model of product would be notable, let alone any secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - weak keep based on 5 things:
    • It has an entry at radiomuseum.org whose articles have been determined elsewhere to be an authoritative, reliable source (I couldn't find the discussion today, however). We have 450-ish articles citing this site. (Don't be put off by the 1990s era website design).
    • The potential redirect target, List of vacuum tubes, is hard to navigate.
    • These tube articles are useful to the 10-15 people who look at them at each day. Not a big number, I know, but they likely appreciate them.
    • Various tubes are discussed in multiple out-of-print handbooks now online
    • If we're being honest, ILIKEIT
I'm not sure this counts but these tubes are widely mentioned in Google Scholar results. That said, I didn't go through all 262 mentions to look for any that are only about the 6AQ5 vacuum; I doubt there are.
These comments would also apply to the 4 tube articles proposed for deletion: 5Y3, 6N3P, 6N24P,and 6P1P. @Pbritti, I wanted to discuss those 4 with you first before possibly removing their PROD tags but I hadn't gotten around to it before this AfD.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: Sorry you didn't get a chance to reach out before the AfD got rolling but I'm glad we can chat here! Frankly, ILIKEIT arguments have a compelling case here. I would be lying if I said I didn't feel a little guilty while submitting those PRODs and this AfD–I'm sure a few people rely on Wikipedia and sites like radiomuseum.org for their hobbyist information. However, I sincerely feel this subject is better suited either to another website or to a list like List of vacuum tubes (as lamentably messy the latter is). If you would like, I wouldn't mind doing some more digging alongside you. I don't have high hopes, but I'm not exactly concerned about my AfD stats. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For starters, take a look at the radiomuseum.org link for this tube that I cite above. It's got a lot of information but not much prose. See what you think.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beam tetrode and 6V6 (which already lists it in the section about similar valves) would also be worth considering as redirect/merge targets - I think they're more likely to be helpful to someone searching for 6AQ5 or EL90. But it's a pretty common valve and there are older books that use it as an example of a small beam power tetrode, e.g. Orr's Radio Handbook (Sams, 1975). Adam Sampson (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Sampson, thank you.
I’ll look at these. I’m not a tube guy but I have many hobbyist friends that are.
I’m generally in favor of densifying Wikipedia - same content, fewer articles. Wikipedia sprawls over 6+ million articles of variable quality. Probably several million of those are small articles that could be condensed into several hundred thousand bigger, more reliable articles - easier to adequately monitor and maintain.
I know I don’t want to redirect the 6AQ5 article to the big List of vacuum tubes article but I’m happy if 6AQ5 gets merged (with no loss of content) to an article about this general type of tube. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - I may be away before this AfD is closed. Based on this thoughtful discussion, I trust y'all to do whatever the right thing is with this article as well as with those 4 PRODs. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Pbritti. I deprodded this one rather than the others as it's perhaps the most likely to be notable. I didn't say it was notable in Wikipedia terms but "well known" and may attract comment because of its European EL90 designation. Also, the valve's still in use. The other reason was out of interest as to how and whether notability could be established for this type of valve; sort of a test case. Rupples (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No individual electronics part number is notable enough on its own to be suitable for an article in a general interest encyclopedia. Article of this type never give any explanations for the reason for the part number's development. Put it in a list of vacuum tubes, use it as an illustration in the history of beam tetrodes, but no need for an individual article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't know anything about the subject matter but in this discussion I see suggestions for a Merge or Redirect. I'd like to encourage seeking an ATD to be VERY specific on what should happen with the content of this article. I don't see a strong opinion to Keep this as a standalone article but could this page title be directed elsewhere? Again, be specific.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A. B.'s source from radiomuseum.org is solid. There are indeed also a lot of hits on ProQuest/Google Books around various electronics, including promising SIGCOV like [14][15][16][17]
It may be that List of vacuum tubes needs some reworking before we can properly start merging such articles, so we shouldn't rush to delete, but if someone can propose a better merge target for now, I'd probably support it. Lastly, I'd like to point out that WP:5 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias. We're not limited to general interest articles. —siroχo 06:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two citations, there are more that exist at the Internet Archive[18]. For example this article[19] is built around discussion of this tube but I can't make use of it to improve the article. As with many older things the amount of online discussion is limited, but a simple search at archive.org will show that this was a widely used tube. I think @Siroxo makes some good points about the desirability of special-interest articles particularly for something like this where there's no obvious redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading my comment, I want to clarify that by saying "a simple search" I had no intention to call out @Pbritti for the extent of WP:BEFORE searches. Going to archive.org isn't essential even if it's a good move for pre-digital era subjects. I appreciate their consideration of the improvements made to the article and of course support the request to withdraw. Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw due to the work of multiple editors to improve this article, located additional sources, and advocate for retention based on an argument that resonates with Wikipedia's objective of freely sharing valuable knowledge. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2023 (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 Catapult centres. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High Value Manufacturing Catapult[edit]

High Value Manufacturing Catapult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The best coverage that I am finding is Jon Excell's 2022 interview with the HVM Catapult's CEO in The Engineer [20] - a fairly substantial piece albeit interview-based. The coverage of HVM Catapult in the Catapult centres article covers the basic territory, so a redirect to there could be a reasonable WP:ATD if more substantial specific coverage can't be found? AllyD (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 27 November 2023 (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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also a criticism of newly added sources, that they are not independent. Please continue to work to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Harkes[edit]

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

Some sources and successes, but not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree. Doesn’t meet GNG guidelines and thus should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Go4thProsper Please check the new citations I have posted below and reconsider your vote. Royal88888 (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I withdraw my “Delete” vote. I am neutral to this AfD post. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator has not done a good job at BEFORE. Just found a whole bunch of news articles about her and have updated the article. Check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Royal88888 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep refs provided satisfy GNG. Djflem (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of IAR Keeps: I can't find more than passing qualitative coverage of her music or comedy -- and that includes the additions by Royal88888 none of which fully meet WP:INDEPENDENT. National attention (Fallon) is clearly not sufficient. Her best-established claim for notability is against WP:MUSICBIO#7 for winning multiple local newspaper polls for best local singer-songwriter, but that still requires sufficient independent coverage of her. What tips me over the line for MUSICBIO#7 is her hosting the 2019 Capital Region awards. But this is rather operating by sonar, and it would be nice if there were clear significant RS coverage of her work -- music and/or comedy -- that wasn't agglomerated with an interview or press release (noting that there may well be coverage that is not or is no longer offline). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Additions by Royal88888 have clearly demonstrated notability. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Odia films of 2023. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malyagiri[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: released a month ago, but in a WP:BEFORE search I can't find reviews or any significant coverage in reliable sources, in English or Odia. WP:REFBOMB'd with film blog posts announcing its release, but none of them seems to know what the film is about. Proposed deletion contested without comment. Wikishovel (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mushy Yank: I can see blog posts that have "review" in the title, but have you found an actual review in English? Can you post the link here please? Wikishovel (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the (not great) review at Information Bapa, currently in the refs. Again, if it’s judged too weak, at least a redirect should be considered for now. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 27 November 2023 (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 Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series#Revan. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revan[edit]

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

A character from Star Wars video game and later, few novels and such. Reception is based on listicles ("chosen by IGN as the 12th greatest Star Wars character") and blog-like churnalism comments ("non-notable chournalist X listed Revan as one of the Star Wars character that she wanted in Soulcalibur, another listed the character as one of his favourite Star Wars video game characters", etc.). My BEFORE shows little - yes, he appears in titles of some chournalist media, and some toys including LEGO, related to him, got some niche reviews. My BEFORE shows little - a few passing mentions in scholarly literature that I found do not seem to meet WP:SIGCOV and that do not go beyond the plot summary. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest redirecting this entry to either to some list of SW characters of the game he is the main character of (Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Jewish Press. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Klass[edit]

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

Delete (WP:TNT) or redirect to The Jewish Press. Per a WP:BEFORE, not much to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2023 (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! 06:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jacob Jimbangan[edit]

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

Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. Had fought election but didn't won. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 04:53, 27 November 2023 (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 Mid-Season Invitational. It is up to the editor taking on the Merge to decide what, if any, content is merged. I've seen instances where no content was moved to the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese teams in the Mid-Season Invitational[edit]

Vietnamese teams in the Mid-Season Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of those actually cover the subject. The first and third are about Vietnam getting its own independent region in League of Legends esports, meaning they get spots in the Mid-Season Invitational (MSI) and World Championship. The second is covers the 2019 MSI taking place in Taiwan. The performances of these teams in the MSI are better to be covered on their respective articles. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions about possibility of a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completely agree that there's not enough here for an article. I also agree that there's nothing worth merging. In favor of whatever has the consensus to eliminate a stand alone article. (I dont wish to split the vote and have it be a "no consensus".) Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 27 November 2023 (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! 06:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nasman[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger, textbook WP:BLP1E. Longhornsg (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (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! 06:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above and Beyond: The Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences[edit]

Above and Beyond: The Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been unsourced since 2010. A quick Google search and Google Scholar search have not brought up any reliable, secondary sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. McGregor, Jim (1969-03-23). "Book Review". Montgomery Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "This fascinating 14-volume set of space and aviation reference books has a direct Montgomery connection, since New Horizons, the publisher, is a division of Fuller And Dees Marketing Group of Montgomery. This factual set would be a leather in the cap of any publisher. "Above and Beyond" is sure to become one of the most notable reference works in the country. Billed as the first complete encyclopedia of space and aviation, the set is certainly complete and it is as interesting to read as a good novel."

    2. Mollwitz, John E. (1969-01-05). "Books: Encyclopedia of Aerospace". Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It appears primarily designed for junior and senior high school students, although the entire family would find the wealth of information useful as they watch developments in space and in the super-sized airliners. Biographical data on airmen who have made history is one of the most significant contributions the set makes. One apparent missing discussion, however, is the controversy over who flew first. The encyclopedia gives the credit to the Wright brothers, but it makes no mention of Gustave Alvin Whitehead. ... Nevertheless, the entire set makes a significant contribution to an understanding of aerospace."

    3. Keeler, Robert A. (January 1969). "Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences". School Library Journal. Vol. 15, no. 5. p. 88. ProQuest 1966017596.

      The abstract notes: "Gr 6 Up-- Billed as "the world's first encyclopedia devoted exclusively to aviation and space science," Above and Beyond is avowedly aimed at the school and library market, with a target age bracket of 10 to 16 years. Although older children and adolescents will be the main readers, adults consulting the set will not detect misleading simplifications or condescending writing. "

    4. "Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences". Booklist. Vol. 67. May 1971. p. 707. EBSCOhost 527111769.

      The excerpt notes: "Designed for the upper elementary and senior high school student, [this encyclopedia] will also be of interest to adults. . . . In general the information is accurate. . . Extensive coverage is given to space exploration and astronautics and to the related field of astronomy. Considering the emphasis of the books, coverage of the physical and biological sciences is not so extensive, but it is adequate. . . . Somewhat more than 20 percent of the material is devoted to military applications of aviation and space research. . . . [There are] useful biographies of men and women associated with aviation and space activities. . . . [A] weakness is the lack of bibliographies. . . . [This set] collects in one source much more information on aerospace than is likely to be found in the more general encyclopedias. . . . Recommended."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Cunard! Would you be willing to add these reviews to the page? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2023 (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! 06:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton High School (Texas)[edit]

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

It's just a high school. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a second active AfD nomination by an editor with very few (56) edits, with an invalid deletion rationale of "just a high school". Just as with the other nomination, it is a school over 100 years old with many, many references available. Jacona (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I assume this editor found this high school looking through my | contributions after my response in a previous deletion discussion. Dayton High School has been established for many years and a very simple Google news tab [search] yields more than enough results to satisfy the GNG guidelines. This editor is acting in bad faith and seems to be going on a streak of overzealous deletion given the apparent inexperience in AFD and lack of rationale. BurgeoningContracting 16:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting A Google search shows lots of results but any high school is going to be mentioned a lot in local media. Which of those search results are non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you define trivial or independent, as the sources are both. Perhaps you did not look at the "news" tab like I had stated. A Newspapers.com search yields thousands of results going back to the establishment of Dayton ISD in the late 1800s. BurgeoningContracting 17:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting That link doesn't work for me. I don't have access to Wikipedia library. The first result I get in a Google news search is "Dayton school board considering policy change for students who attend games" in the Dayton Daily News. As I said, any school will have mentions in the local news - football game scores, graduations, etc. Is there any in-depth reporting about the school from outside of the local community? Saying why this school is notable? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dayton Daily News is an Dayton-based paper. Not Dayton, Texas. I find it remarkable you are not able to access the Newspapers.com link, but you can certainly see this version. Just because you cannot see or find the results on Google does not mean they do not exist. There are too many examples to link. BurgeoningContracting 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting You're right. So it's not even an article about the same high school, which just shows that having a lot of search results doesn't mean that something has non-trivial, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you it is that you mean by "trivial." I'm afraid this is a case of disruptive behavior to make a point since I am handing you these sources into your own hands. BurgeoningContracting 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting "Trivial" in this case is the opposite of "substantive". See WP:SIGCOV. I have no idea what you mmean by "I am handing you these sources into your own hands". Which sources? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If one is to read the significant coverage guideline, it will read, "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." Obviously, both search options I presented, again, yield various results that satisfy this requirement. I will no longer respond to your replies, since it seems this is a case of plain disruptive behavior, more specifically, a case of I Can't Hear you BurgeoningContracting 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting I can't hear you because you aren't answering my question. I have told you that I can't access the newspapers.com articles and the Google search results aren't helpful. What are the reliable sources that provide significant, independent coverage to show that this high school belongs in Wikipedia? If you have some, why not tell me what they are or add them to the article? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────┘
Counterfeit Purses, Your ability to access a source doesn't make a source valid or invalid. If you aren't capable of doing the research, why are you nominating articles for deletion? — Jacona (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona I don't understand the game-playing here. You both claim you have useful sources. If there are sources, just add them to the article. Or post links here. I really don't understand how it is helpful to keep them to yourself. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Counterfeit Purses, I'm playing no game. I'm not keeping anything to myself, I've found thousands of sources, and given you some instruction on how to find them. If you can't find them, you do not have the skills needed to do the job, so gain those skills. I am willing to help, as are others. Competency is required, and you don't seem to have it nor are you willing to get it, so why are you nominating articles for deletion if you don't have the capability or willingness to do the research? — Jacona (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to Category:Public high schools in Texas, there are approximately 766 total Texas high schools listed on Wikipedia. Of those, 485 are Category:Texas high school stubs, unknown how many are Start class. So, "It's just a high school" doesn't seem a valid reason for deletion. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. No valid rationale given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per al forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Also, saying "it's just a high school" on Wikipedia in 2023 as an AFD nomination is simply unacceptable, and of course this nominator and beautiful troll knows it.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - the AGF rational is that this was an overly ambitious action by a new editor. With there being no opposition to keeping and no valid rationale for deletion this ( and the editor's other nom) should just be closed. With appropriate counseling for the editor in question, of course. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't gotten all the way down the list. The other deletion discussion has already been closed speedy keep. This one should be too. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just a simple google search gives numerous reliable sources about Dayton High School (Texas), has been in existence for a long time. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2023 (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! 06:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese threat theory[edit]

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

This could be a violation of WP:NOTESSAY and is worth a discussion. Amigao (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no sufficient policy-based argument has been made. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Economics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article could use some work, but the first few sources cited suggest this is a subject that has broad recognition and thus passes WP:GNG.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive independent, significant coverage from leading media outlets, including Reuters, New York Times, Al Jazeera, The Times, The Times of India, as well as a plethora of primary academic work on the topic. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears notable, doesn't look bad enough that deletion is the best option. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 00:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a WikiEd article so pinging the prof: @Piotrus:. Also seems to be at least partially a translated article from zh. Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not exclusively a WP:NOTESSAY violation to warrent an AfD 𐩘 Datapass talk ⌇ contribs 08:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks Jumpytoo for the ping. I am indeed the instructor supervising this. And yes, this is a translation from zh. While the article needs copyediting and whatsnot, I believe it meets WP:GNG and is ready for mainspace (I'd rate it as C-class, not B-class, but shrug). If the nom thinks there are some essay like part, I recommend they either fix them or list them on talk so that the student can do so (the assignment will be graded in mid to late December).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the only problem I could envision is if there already was an article on the topic. If that was the case, then the newer article should be merged into the older article. Abductive (reasoning) 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete. The article itself seems synthetic, relying on headline phraseology to create a topic where one does not readily exist: it admits it is not covering one specific 'theory', but rather collating every assorted way another polity has characterized China as a threat, without justifying why they are all part of one "thing". The subject seems to have vanishingly little substance outside of detailing China's foreign politics, which is contained in other articles. The article should either be deleted, or its scope defined much more narrowly about a specific 'theory', either self-professed or at least as the label China has begun applying in its rhetoric. Remsense留 18:12, 1 December 2023 (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:HEY. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkana, Louisiana[edit]

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

Leeper's place names book doesn't say what this spot is, and the topos show that it is a passing siding on the old Cotton Belt line, straddling the state line. It's clearly not a settlement, just a NN rail point. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found SPC 1890, p. 122 saying that "Alden's Bridge and Arkana are also new railroad towns.". So it's a town. Would that the "Arkana" chapter of Temple 2008 were usable! It explains everything, with populations, postmasters, and federal writers projects; even the fact that this is the same place as Arkana, Arkansas in Lafayette. Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was a town. There's nothing there now. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there is, and Temple 2008, p. 356 even lists it. As I said, it's a damn shame that Robert D. Temple self-published and has undiscernable expert credentials. All that we have in the meantime are SPC 1890, p. 122 and the Federal Writers' Project, which I have now managed to track down (Temple just mentioning the FWP without title, date, or anything to go on), and the somewhat dubious ALTGA 1990, p. 197 saying "several stores, a saw mill, church and a post office". Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Temple (p. 356) says "The town is gone, though, except for the name on a topo map, a UP rail siding, and the Arkana oil and gas field a few miles away in Louisiana." If we are to use him as a source we can definitely put the place in the past tense. Mangoe (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • A UP rail siding and an oil and gas field are not nothing. Ironically, there's excellent support elsewhere in Temple for the claim of it being a ghost town. But as I said, I cannot discern any expert credentials for Temple. You might want to check the article; it is in the past tense. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • "Bossier Parish". Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Northwest Louisiana. Southern Publishing Company. 1890.
  • Temple, Robert D. (2008). "Arkana". Edge Effects: The Border-Name Places. iUniverse. ISBN 9781440101465.
  • "The Towns in Bossier Parish". The Genie. Vol. 24–25. Ark-La-Tex Genealogical Association. 1990.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Arkana was a small town on the border of Louisiana and Arkansas, headquarters of a railroad company, with a school, church, lumber mill, rail station, post office, 1900 census population of 12, a 1920 census of 63, and a 1940 census population of 63. The community was noted in regional newspapers from Shreveport to Bossier City to papers in Arkansas, and the Bossier City Banner had a weekly news column about Arkana, which it regarded as a prosperous, up-and-coming community. I'm seeing over 200 news articles about Arkana from about 1910 to about 1945, when Arkana seemingly fades from history. I've expanded the article; more work is in progress, but this was a notable town, with sources found in the Library of Congress, discussion of the community's resources in state publications in Baton Rouge, and regional coverage in the Shreveport area. I'm really overwhelmed by the number of sources: the Arkana and Eastern Railroad itself could be its own article, given time. (BTW, I wouldn't use the Temple (2008) source; not only is it self-published, it doesn't match what any of the other sources say about Arkana; it claims Arkana was a community of about 500 residents. No other source confirms or even approaches those numbers). Anyway, this article should be kept and expanded further, not deleted: there's no reason to delete an article which can be sourced,. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly was a town on Newspapers Extended, e.g. in the May 1912 Bossier Banner-Progress: [21]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Nice work in finding sources and expanding Firsfron, and for working out how to filter out all the other hits for $arkana$ which I would guess put most people off. (It put me off when I first saw this.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hits for Arkana in Baxter County, Arkansas, and Texarkana definitely have been a bit frustrating. Thanks for the additions! The article already looks better. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Walter[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. No WP:SIGCOV. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Photography, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails both general and creative-specific notability guidelines. There might be some Polish sources that provide sigcov and I missed but I doubt it. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I checked the polish Wiki sources before nomination, and it didn't meet the standard either. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per forementioned reason above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full spectral imaging[edit]

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

Neologism, single-source spam. fgnievinski (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Technology, and Spaceflight. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Terrible article in its current form, but this is a topic of legitimate research ([22], [23], [24]). My only concern is that these sources seem to use the term somewhat loosely, referring to different (but related) concepts. So the article would need to be significantly broadened if it is kept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeirdNAnnoyed, I saw those refs in my own search and wondered about broadening this topic but the connections between these papers are tenuous. I just don't think it would work which is why I !voted delete.
    I also don't know who would step up to essentially start the article all over from scratch. If want to rewrite this during this AfD, that would be a real WP:HEYMAN and you'd have my support. At the same time, you shouldn't feel forced.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. This somewhat generic term can refer to multiple unrelated things. This article is specifically about a kind of imaging technology for earth-monitoring and imaging satellites. I did a lot of searching and came up empty-handed for satellite-related papers authored by anyone else besides the author of this Wikipedia article, JFBolton. I did find some other scientific papers that used this term in unrelated ways (example: botany) but they are not applicable here.
JFBolton wrote and edited this article in 2007-2008 and has no other contributions since.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to lack of consensus. I will say that the same Merge suggestion was brought up at the previous AFD back in 2010.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neologism that failed to gain notability in the form described on the page. All academic sources that describe it in depth using the same scope appear to be authored by the same person. I'm not opposed to merging in principle, but it would be a second choice as, after reviewing the sources, I'm confused about the target. Should it be described as a proposed method in Hyperspectral imaging (per sources) or mentioned in one of the articles on Landsat satellites or their sensors as a method actually employed there? If it's WP:DUE there, why hasn't it been mentioned on any of these pages to date? PaulT2022 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist or a possible No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Daring episodes[edit]

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

The main article "Most Daring" was deleted due to not having reliable sources. OWaunTon (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2023 (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 03:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Robotics[edit]

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

Sourcing does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. The sources I found consist chiefly in:

  • Database entry
  • Blog posts
  • Primary sources from SRI International, Meka Robotics, et al.
  • CEO profiles
  • Acquisition announcements

which is too weak for an article about a business. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2023 (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! 08:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nyota, The Peacemaker[edit]

Nyota, The Peacemaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a multi-language search, can’t find a source (or even a trace) for anything about this. All other mentions seem to point to this page. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NB. Given the edit history, suspect this was self-advertising from 2011 created by an editor who had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Waterfelt (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find anything about this comic. This very discussion is now one of the highest-ranking search results, and all other pages about the comic just copied their text from Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable comic, and article has remained unsourced since its creation in 2011. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:25, 27 November 2023 (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. In the middle of this discussion the nominator retracted their nomination so I'm closing this as a Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Business Network[edit]

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

This topic does not meet WP:NCORP. I did not see any reliable, independent sourcing that covered the company in detail and is not just a routine announcement like acquisition. The main source that exists, "Long Boom or Bust", The New York Times, is not independent of the subject since it is a profile of its CEO. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, England, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there are plenty of sources even in the article. Garreau (1994) and Levin (2009) provide significant coverage, and Turner (2006) discusses GBN at length. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. At least two out of three of the sources you gave are not Wikipedia:Independent which is required for the notability guideline.
    • Levin (2009). Journalist is high-profile and established at Slate.com, but this specific article seems like a promotional/commissioned piece since it only talks about the company. More importantly, it is about 60% an interview of the CEO (not independent). For example, see this excerpt:

      Today, I’ve asked the world’s leading provider of futuristic consulting to help me think about America’s downfall.

    • Garreau (1994), https://www.wired.com/1994/11/gbn/. Not independent: First, see the excerpt

      For information about GBN, e-mail [email protected] or look for GBN's World Wide Web home page at http://www.well.com/Community/gbn/.

      Second, on Joel Garreau's CV, it's written:

      he has served as a scenario-planner with Global Business Network, and is principal of The Garreau Group – a network of sources committed to understanding who we are, how we got that way, and where we’re headed.

    This leaves the sourcing lacking for WP:GNG let alone for the more strict WP:NCORP. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The last one also seems to fail WP:INDEPENDENT. For example, see the sentence

    Most of all, I thank Stewart Brand, whose openness to this project has been a lesson in itself.

    on page 10. Stewart Brand is listed as one of the founders. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. More than enough in-depth coverage found in multiple independent reliable sources, including The Economist (1998); The New York Times article by Steve Lohr (1998); the TIME magazine article (2004) by Chris Taylor. In terms of coverage of its reports, there are articles like the one in Earth Island Journal about the GBN scenario planning for the U.S. Department of Defense. Yes, articles that incorporate interview content need to be evaluated carefully, but the articles mentioned above do include independent observations, analysis, and assessment of the subject, in addition to fact reporting and fact checking. Agree though that the most in-depth article of all, the one by Joel Garreau in Wired, does not count as independent, as the author himself was a GBN member when he wrote it. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to retract nomination based the new sources brought forward. New York Times article is a CEO profile so not independent however. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @बिनोद थारू but you cannot simply categorize articles in broad strokes as "interview" or "CEO profile" and then dismiss them. You have to read and analyze the content and assess what is there. In this case, the article is written by Steve Lohr, a respected business journalist for The New York Times, and when you read it, it's not a CEO "puff piece" like you might find in Inc. magazine; it is analytical and explores criticisms and shows that Lohr took time to do his own independent research and interview other experts for their opinions. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the excerpt from the New York Times article:

    Peter Schwartz is a professional marketer of big, brow-furrowing ideas. By 2020, he says, the internal combustion engine will probably have gone the way of the dodo bird as conventional automobiles are replaced by hybrid cars powered by fuel cells that mostly use hydrogen.

    A telecommunications revolution, Mr. Schwartz believes, is coming even sooner. Thanks to big satellite projects, connections for high-speed Internet, telephone and video will be commonplace in six years or so. The world will be wired, inexpensively. By 2005, teen-agers in villages in developing countries will be chatting on video phones as they surf the Net.

    By 2010, Mr. Schwartz predicts, breakthroughs in biotechnology and gene therapy may enable science to reverse aging and extend life. The prospect here, he insists, is not merely a prolonged old age but living for decades in one's biological 40's.

    Yet these are mere ingredients of Mr. Schwartz's biggest idea, which he calls the Long Boom. Its thesis is that the world is witnessing what Mr. Schwartz calls the beginnings of a global economic boom on a scale never experienced before, driven by waves of fundamental technological change and free-market economics.

    Based on how it is written and how it lends all the attention to the CEO, I concluded that it is a promotional piece for the company. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why you have to read the article all the way to the end! Cielquiparle (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎. Apologies I did not realize there was a recent AFD. Regardless, I must note that the match-up having a cute name does not make it a rivalry – no sources use the term – so it should not be listed at List of NCAA college football rivalry games. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 05:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion Bowl[edit]

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

The two teams have played just four games, decades apart. All sources are expectedly routine coverage that any college football games get – just because someone made up a cute nickname does not mean it's a notable topic or even a "series" as described in the intro. Reywas92Talk 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Florida, and Ohio. Reywas92Talk 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was kept at an AfD closed roughly 90 days ago. I voted "keep" then and still believe the SIGCOV supports that result. The coverage goes well beyond that which "any college football game gets." The bad feelings between the two Miamis dates back to the founding of the Florida school in the 1920s (a century after the Ohio school), and I added some of the context on that. Cbl62 (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qt version history[edit]

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

Exhaustive list of software updates, fails NLIST, WP:NOTCHANGELOG  // Timothy :: talk  01:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bhojpuri films#1980s. ✗plicit 03:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyan Magan Pahelwani Mein[edit]

Saiyan Magan Pahelwani Mein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. No evidence of notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2023 (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 Snow White. Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsman (Snow White)[edit]

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

Identical set of problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King (Snow White) has. Minor character from fairy tail, plot summary + information on who played him in some modern adaptations, very poorly referenced, no analysis/reception, and my BEFORE finds nothing. There is a bit of coverage of the Huntsman from the modern The Huntsman film series, but not much outside plot summary/casting, although the existence of that franchise makes searching for this already generic name hard :( Fandom has an unreferenced section on character development, that is arguably better than what we have (https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Huntsman_(Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs)). Can anyone find anything to rescue this? The best I find is the use of the character name in the title of this minor academic article, but contents seem to ignore him (or at least my search of the pdf fails to turn anything of use). Otherwise, we can discuss redirect targets I guess... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with the character section of Snow White. There's a lot out there online to find sourcing for most, if not all, of the above. Not sure I understand what this could be a coatrack for. There's just a lot of variations and remakes of the Snow White story. — Maile (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Snow White. Nothing worth keeping as the article is entirely in-universe content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Snow White - Better than the now deleted King article, since this character actually does exist in most versions of the story. But there is still no significant coverage in reliable sources within the article itself or presented in this AFD that demonstrate that they are a character that is notable enough to pass the WP:GNG for their own article. The character's role in the original story is covered in the plot summary of the main Snow White article, making it a good redirect target. The rest of this article is simply a list of appearances of the character in various adaptations, and those appearances are generally described in the articles for each of those adaptations. Rorshacma (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_27&oldid=1188644172"