Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 17 October 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hicks[edit]

Stephen Hicks (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. As one of its talk page thread says, this article looks like a PR piece. All sources are blogs, university documents and things written by Hicks himself. The page was created by a SPA that has been editing it for over 15 years, which explains the puffy writing. SparklyNights 23:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and United States of America. SparklyNights 23:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Illinois, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a shame that the writer of this rather puffy BLP could not take the trouble to provide a GS profile, but I think that there is a pass of WP:Prof and WP:Author in a low-profile field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. One search on GS gives a book with 490 citations, which alone is well sufficient for SNG. Judging from the edit history there might be a COI problem but that is grounds for careful review, not for deletion. The career section contains (by my count) 4 references to him authored by academic peers, so the nominator has not checked things carefully. The most problematic part I noticed is actually the "criticism" section which appears to contain titles for unrelated books by another author. That smells of promotion. Ceconhistorian (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see his google scholar publications now, he is noted as "SRC Hicks" and that was why I couldn't find him before. His book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault has over 400 citations now, which is a very big number, but I'm still concerned about the fact that his other publications still didn't get anywhere near that level of attention (his Nietzsche and the Nazis only has over 20 citations, for example, and I can't confirm if any of them mention Hicks beyond a passing mention). If only the postmodernism book is getting coverage, maybe we should have an article about the book and not him. I could confirm 2 sources about his works in the Career section of the article, one of which is about Explaining Postmodernism and the other seems to have been deleted from the Atlas Society website. SparklyNights
SparklyNights 05:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His overall count looks good enough; 490 is massive and 20-60 are not bad citation numbers for a niche area like history of philosophy. From WP:PROF: "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences." History of philosophy is twice disadvantaged because it's in the humanities and quite theoretical. I've tried to come up with a fair comparison and the first that comes to mind is Peter Steinberger, a well-respected historian of philosophy who wrote on similar subjects -- here are his citation numbers. Ceconhistorian (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the titles for unrelated books by another author were added to explain who the reviewer being quoted is; the line is a bit awkward as a result, but it doesn't strike me as advertising those books. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 19 October 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 Wybranowo, Inowrocław County. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Łążyn, Gmina Rojewo[edit]

Łążyn, Gmina Rojewo (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 reliable source provided in the article. The location given in the article is empty fields. Checking the Polish regulation on the names of towns and parts of towns, it is described as "część wsi Wybranowo" (i.e., part of Wybranowo) - see p.1166. This location is not a legally-recognised populated place, but instead just a part of one.

No need to merge as there is no reliably-sourced content in the article. The location isn't even a hamlet (which would be described as a przysiółek in the Polish regulation) so the article is incorrect. It is not likely that anyone would search the name of a part of Wybranowo that isn't even used in addresses in the area, so no need to redirect.

TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE FOARP (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a populated place but part of another populated place and there is not much information available. It can be redirected as it's in the place name register (at 52°52′27″N 18°12′53″E / 52.87417°N 18.21472°E / 52.87417; 18.21472; the coordinates in the article are not very precise or even within Gmina Rojewo). Peter James (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Wybranowo. Per TERYT, it is a part of that village. No need for a stand-alone article. No pl wiki interwiki or article there I can locate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Proposed Merge targe is a Redirect page, would you support Wybranowo, Inowrocław County as an alternative target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found This listed in the Polish Wiki: Łążyn – a village in the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship , Toruń County , Obrowo Commune
Łążyn – a village in the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship , Toruń County , Zławieś Wielka Commune PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and this in the ar.wiki5.ru Wikipedia: Łążyn [ˈwɔ̃ʐɨn] ( German : Lonzyn) is a small village in the administrative district of Gmina Rojewo , within Inowrocław County , Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship , in north-central Poland. It is located about 2 kilometers (1 mi) northeast of Jaxes .
Wikipedia  site:ar.wiki5.ru PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear on this, Wikipedia is not a source. If this really were a village, a source would say so. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a source, I was just providing what it says in the other languages' wikipedias. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:14, 23 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Stickney[edit]

Brandon Stickney (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning Keep. The book on McVeigh seems likely to be notable; at least one review of this book on Proquest search, plus the Time article and multiple other news/magazine articles which I can't access. There also seems to be some fuss over another author allegedly plagiarising the book (Letters. Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 38, Iss. 1, (May/Jun 1999): 8.) referencing an article in Columbia Journalism Review that compared the two books. Also possibly local newspaper reviews of The Amazing Seven Sutherland Sisters (LOCKPORT AUTHOR FINDS STORY OF VICTORIAN SISTERS COMPELLING. Fischer, Nancy A.  Buffalo News; Buffalo, N.Y.. 28 Mar 2004: NC8. & Recounting a hair-raising story: Sutherland Sisters subject of new book. Fischer, Nancy A.  Buffalo News; Buffalo, N.Y.. 11 Mar 2012: NC.5.) and an interview (Biographer of McVeigh has moved on from dark era. Continelli, Louise. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. 19 Apr 2009.). There's also a review of his recent memoir which contains some biographical material (including noting the above plagiarism) (Kirkus Reviews. 8/1/2020, Vol. 88 Issue 15, pN). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. One possibility that could be considered would be repurposing the article to discuss the notable book on McVeigh, and having a brief author section that name checks Stickney's later less-notable works. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 18 October 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. This article was sent to AFD just a few hours after it was created and a lot of editing has occurred since the nomination which was the second edit to the article. I see a mix of Keeps and Deletes after 3 relistings which leaves me at No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knysna fine art[edit]

Knysna fine art (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)

Lack of notability. My confidence in the sources is not enhanced by the fact that all of them are blocked by the library where I edit. TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that the subject of the article should be eligible for publication as the gallery in question is the largest of its kind in South Africa. I have added additional sources since first publication DoubleTripleYou (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is promotional, stating It is considered one of the top contemporary galleries in South Africa with a citation to a travel guide and no further information about why it might be considered important. Also states Read, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on contemporary South African art with citation to the gallery's site and a tour guide. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:42, 17 October 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! 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: looking at the sources as a whole, what doesn't fail WP:V fails WP:N. Not part of my consideration but notable to the discussion is the concerns about WP:PROMOTION.
microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 16:00, 19 October 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. Daniel (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mokradła, West Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

Mokradła, West Pomeranian Voivodeship (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 location given in the article is an empty field. The listing on the Polish regulation for place-names is for a "settlement" (osada), which are not strictly required to be inhabited to receive this status. This is not a previously-inhabited locality that is now uninhabited as these are given a separate designation under Polish law ("miejscowość niezamieszkana").

Fails WP:GEOLAND as there is no clear evidence of inhabitation and good reason to believe it uninhabited, and as the status the place has is not that of an necessarily-inhabited place (i.e., it is not a village or town). Fails WP:GNG as there is no other sourcing.

As for ATDs, there is no reliably-sourced information here to merge about this location - it is simply a location. Redirection makes little sense as it would simply land the reader on a page with no information about Mokradła, since there is nothing to say about it. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikt:zamieszkany is in the definition, so presumably it was formerly inhabited; the place name register says there are no buildings. "miejscowość niezamieszkana" seems to be a place with no permanent residents. Peter James (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, many of these locations appear to be statistical artefacts. Particularly, it seems many/most Polish forestry offices and state farms, amongst other entities, were added as locations to the register, and remained on it even after being shut down or sold off.
    At the very least given other errors (eg the non-existent Zielony Gaj) there is plentiful reason to doubt this place was ever anything notable. FOARP (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://zamkilubuskie.pl/mokradla-vw-brenkenhofsbrink/ mentions a German name for the place and says it was only a farm. Peter James (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. TERYT confirms it exists and is classified as a hamlet (osada). That may be enough to make it notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The link you just posted takes us to the search-page, not to any results. It obviously does not exist at present, since there is nothing at the location the article tells us it's at. A hamlet would be przysiółek. In English a "hamlet" requires more than just one building, and this corresponds also to the definition of a przysiółek which requires a cluster of farms (i.e., not just one or no buildings). FOARP (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the only source is a database a redirect to Gmina Świerzno probably makes more sense than a keep. Though is a case like this I don't feel strongly between delete and redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator that no evidence has been presented that this is, or has been, a settlement at any point. At most it may be, or have been, a patch of farmland, but are inclusionary stance on settlements does not extend to farms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 26 October 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! 06:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lash[edit]

Tom Lash (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)

Reviewed during NPP.Unsucessful third party candidate for a congressional seat getting approx 3% of the vote. No GNG sources or anything close. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this isn't even attempting to claim that he has any preexisting notability for any other reason besides an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NPOL because the article is about “Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.” also from WP:NPOL “A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists”[1] which Lash has.
Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. So the existence of the merely expected campaign coverage is not in and of itself a "surpasses GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL" card — campaign coverage builds toward permanent notability only if it expands to such a deeply unexpected (much more nationalized than the norm, much more enduring than the norm, etc.) degree that his candidacy stands out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the thousands of other candidates who didn't get articles. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NPOL as cited by Bearcat. Further, none of these sources establish notability. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 15:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Expanding / adding background info on my nomination, the one race that he ran for was for one of the 435 US congressional seats (I.E. ran in a local election in an area that includes 1/435th of the US) and in that race was not the Democrat or Republican nominee and only received 3% of the vote. Also to emphasize, the only coverage was of the unsuccessful run and there is no GNG-suitable coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet NPOL, so we're left with a politician whose candidacy is only routine coverage of a race. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and has only received routine coverage of his two rather unsuccessful campaigns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually prefer a redirect to California's 46th congressional district where he is listed in the vote totals. Not enough coverage to support and independent article, but fairly mentioned in the context of the election his campaigns were part of. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:22, 25 October 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 Galaxy Store#Samsung apps provided. (non-admin closure) NM 19:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Email[edit]

Samsung Email (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. Default email client on Samsung devices. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  19:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Default client yes, but it's Samsung which is very widespread and used. I don't think it will take much to get this article to the level of K-9 Mail. Sparatys (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Keep- I Have added info & citations that prove notability. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to very little discussion activity, More Activity would be needed to reach a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not impressed with the citations PaulGamerBoy360 provided. They don't exactly show reliability. I would like to see a source assessment table. Conyo14 (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Galxay Store No Owned By Samsung Yes One of the 2 Official Sources to download the app. No Basic Listing ✘ No
Kiiky Tech (What is Samsung Email?) Yes Independent Site ~ Site Seems Reliable but author is using a pen name. Yes Article Has Multiple Paragraphs ~ Partial
phone.fyicenter(What is Samsung Email?) Yes No Site seems sketchy and is bombarded with ads. No Basic List Describing some of The Specifications ✘ No
Mobile Pains(Samsung Email V.S. Email Yes Yes Author is a software engineer Yes ✔ Yes
Android Police(Samsung puts its Email application to the Play Store [APK Download]) Yes ? No Routine Coverage ✘ No
Google Play Store Yes Samsung Runs Samsung OS With One UI. Yes One of the 2 official sources to download the app. Yes Multiple Paragraphs ✔ Yes
Sam Mobile Yes Yes No Routine Coverage ✘ No
Fixegg(Samsung Email Review) Yes No website says all posts are made in good faith, and does not provide warranty that the information is reliable. Yes ✘ No
samsung.com No own website Yes ~ ✘ No
SAMMobile Yes Yes ~ has Significant Coverage(but most is routine) ~ Partial
Security Report Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The one source I'll disagree with is the Google Play Store one. Primarily on independence. Samsung phones use Android OS. For now, I am a weak keep but that could change if more sources are found. Conyo14 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Update I am changing to Merge/Redirect per the below. It is a much better target than keeping. However, merge some of the notable attributes. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Samsung Phones Technically Run Samsung OS with One UI, which is compatible with android apps, that is why the playstore is an independent source. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
aslo google and samsung are competitors(samsung's appstore is called the "Galaxy Store"), and the google play store is owned by google, also making it independent. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article already has 17 citations, over 1,000,000,000 downloads, 4.2 Star Rating With 2.43Million Reviews, and is the default email client for samsung devices PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Galaxy Store#Samsung apps provided If you have a Samsung phone you're either using this basic app or something much more robust, and it's doubtful many non-Samsung Android users are downloading this off the Play Store. I do think per WP:ATD the title should go somewhere though. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if so then we better delete K9Mail as well due to it having less references to prove notability than samsung email. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to nominate it. At the very least there is a target for that too. Conyo14 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per MrSchmipf. Andre🚐 00:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No objection to the above merge/redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  00:38, 19 October 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 07:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kuwait, Warsaw[edit]

Embassy of Kuwait, Warsaw (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 embassy building. The notability standard for buildings is WP:NBUILDING, which essentially requires a WP:GNG pass with significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. None of the sources present in the article are independent as they are all Polish government sources. A WP:BEFORE search for additional sources turned up only brief mentions in the official Kuwaiti state media such as this one and this one.

There is no Polish-Kuwaiti relations page to merge to, nor is there likely to be anything that could sustain the notability of such a page. FOARP (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 18 October 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. Although the input in this discussion are comments, I feel that after two relists the relevant points have been made. Long standing practice is that legally recognized places are kept, but this does not automatically extend to neighborhoods or housing projects unless WP:GNG is met. In the course of this discussion, I cannot see that any such sources have been provided, and as such, there is no basis for a separate article.

Merging was suggested, although I don't see much content to merge, but I do recognize that Ruwa has this project listed in its list of suburbs, so I will be redirecting there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mabvazuva Estate, Ruwa[edit]

Mabvazuva Estate, Ruwa (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. Only one RS(?) mentioned in the article that gives information about the development of this estate. Other online coverage I found are quite routine for any estate development. TheLonelyPather (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A location stub has been added, just revisit the page. Mindthem (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•The article has reliable source that Herald Zimbabwe and when we are to verify, we should also look at the dates of the article.
•If we are to use Google Maps and turn on satellite view, we will see that the estate is 70%-90% fully developed and people are living there.
•Also if we are to search on google about the estate, remember we are in different locations so our results differ as well, based on where we are at the moment of search.
Thank you Mindthem (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This does need a bit more to pass GNG as the only readily found sources are YouTube videos and estate agents listings plus the Herald feature. If the estate is officially part of Ruwa maybe a merge there is in order. Rupples (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How are we gonna merge a town and a suburb? Mindthem (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, not sure what you're asking here. Rupples (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page must be kept and listed under WikiProject Zimbabwe, so that editors from Zimbabwe who are much more familiar with the area, can cite it better and do a general improvement on the article. Mindthem (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mindthem As the nominator I want to clarify that I am nominating this page for deletion not because of its quality, but because of its notability. These two are independent criteria on Wikipedia. Notability is required for an article to exist on Wikipedia.
You are more than welcome to bring this article to WikiProject Zimbabwe and seek significant coverage from reliable sources of the subject.
Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Wahs[edit]

Al-Wahs (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)

One sentence, basic infobox, only 3 sources all Non-RS(Previously De-PRODed) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Yemen. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It's not clear to me what 'Uzlah (the type of division) really means. The person who wrote that article is gone and we really need a subject matter expert to resolve this. That said at this point I'm not going to oppose deletion. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dhi As Sufal District. Someone mass-produced a ton of these at Template:Ibb Governorate, but if even the main district article is a microstub, it's not clear that we should have articles on sub-districts like this too. 'Uzlah doesn't give indication of their actual role or notability. Reywas92Talk 15:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The reason to delete is unclear - short articles are acceptable and the sources are not obviously unreliable. It's also more useful when looking for information about a place to have just the information about the place in one article than have to search through a longer page (particularly where a different spelling or transliteration may be used). The district page would become too long if it had to include all subdistricts and villages. Peter James (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I second Peter James' reasons, and would add that randomly deleting places in a war zone could be perceived as POV. There are 3000 people...maybe you can find better sources. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I agree that there is nothing wrong with stub articles as long as they are reliably sourced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

none of the three sources are reliable sources PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 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! 23:21, 18 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S3 Movies[edit]

S3 Movies (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 or WP:NCORP. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @DreamRimmer, though I'm aware about the GNG, but since there are not much articles on English language. That may causing this issue. Since there is a similar article, Tarang Cine Productions, so I through to create it. - Sangram Keshari Senapati (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssgapu22 if there are other citations in other languages, please provide them for our review. Hkkingg (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few references in both Odia and English. There were some news I read on newspaper, but unfortunately, there is no way to search them through Google. - Sangram Keshari Senapati (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I did a source analysis of the provided sources.
Analysis of the sources
Source Content Remarks
1. KalingaTV A press release announcing new films. No mention of S3 Movies.
2. OdiaCelebrity An interview focusing on the owner of S3 Movies. Primarily a primary source. S3 Movies mentioned only once.
3. Sambad A press release for a film release, not particularly relevant to S3 Movies. No significant coverage for S3 Movies.
4. orissadiary.com Discussion about a documentary film with a passing mention of S3 Movies. S3 Movies mentioned only once.
5. odishasambad.in

6. yugabdha.com 7. odiacelebrity.com 8. kalingatv.com 9. mycitylinks.in

Press releases related to various films. No SIGCOV for S3 Movies.

Overall, the analysis indicates that S3 Movies does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 18 October 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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sonski[edit]

Peter Sonski (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 standards for biographies. SecretName101 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are enough RS and content here to keep the article. I suspect there will only be more as the campaign progresses as well, but I am satisifeid with what exists currently. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slugger O'Toole Routine campaign coverage that fails to establish individual notability does not suffice. SecretName101 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons. (1) While coverage on private websites doesn't establish notability, coverage in National Review certainly does. The National Review column (cited in footnote 11) lists Sonski alongside Ron DeSantis as candidates who have endorsed a Princeton professor's column. It's reasonable for readers of National Review to wonder who Sonski is, and some of them will turn to Wikipedia for an answer. (2) In the 2020 presidential election, the American Solidarity Party was on the ballot in eight states, and an authorized write-in in most of the others, and received notable coverage. That makes their 2024 nominee notable. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing mention in an article has NEVER been enough to satisfy notability. So that National Review article is certainly not enough SecretName101 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on coverage here 1, 2, and 3.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two are the very definition of routine coverage, and the third one alone does not establish his notability. None of those sources illustrate notability. SecretName101 (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a fair number of editors who want to see this article Kept and two different Redirect articles suggested. So, no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election. Having reviewed the responses to the !keep votes, I think it's clear that an article is TOOSOON at this point, and the subject does not meet N. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 15:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick edit: I will say Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election § Nominated candidates for the sake of consensus. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 15:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A third party candidate for President of the United States is notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:28, 22 October 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. A7/A11. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

50.45.180.190 (Vandalism Bandit)[edit]

50.45.180.190 (Vandalism Bandit) (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)

Clearly and obviously fails WP:GNG even though PROD was contested. I initially tagged as a WP:G3 but, upon reflection, it doesn't meet the definition. I can't see this meeting any of the speedy deletion criteria so I'm sending it to AfD. The creator seems adamant that because the article is 'funny', it doesn't need to meet our notability guidelines. I'm hoping that common sense can prevail and WP:SNOW delete can happen. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An admin really should just come along and delete it. There's no use in holding an AFD for an article that should be speedy deleted but can't because it hardly fits under any criteria (though maybe it fits under A11, since there's no such thing as a "vandalism bandit"). Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly unfit for an encyclopedia. Completely non-notable. Schminnte [talk to me] 23:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete either by closing this AFD early or WP:A7 or something. Skynxnex (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Misplaced humorous page. The author of this article, @MrHistoryH also looks NOTHERE. I did laugh with this article, though.SparklyNights 03:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: per WP:A11. Not a notable topic. User:Let'srun 01:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Per all above. Not a humor page. This straight up looks like an attack page against a school. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added a tag to see if an admin is willing to delete under WP:A7 and/or WP:A11 per the above comments. If not, we may have to wait for the snow to fall... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:33, 19 October 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! 23:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Weinstein (musician)[edit]

Michael Weinstein (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)

Subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onkar Ghate[edit]

Onkar Ghate (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:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. This article reads more like a resume than anything else. I could find no sources to establish this guy's notability. SparklyNights 22:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Economics, and Canada. SparklyNights 22:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His own writings and non-independent profiles from the places he writes for are available, but not independent, reliable source coverage. Even recent books covering the Objectivist movement don't discuss him. --RL0919 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 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 Bill Tiller. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#No_quorum, "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" in the absence of any views to the contrary. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Moon Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Autumn Moon Entertainment (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)

Insufficiently notable, merge with Bill Tiller. Last AFD was delete? IgelRM (talk) 21:50, 18 October 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 by nominator per WP:WITHDRAW (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hessen[edit]

Robert Hessen (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 and WP:NACADEMIC. This article only has one reliable source, most of its content is clearly original research. SparklyNights 21:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I hadn't seen the review of his books at the bottom of the article, that makes him notable. SparklyNights 01:27, 19 October 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. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Matthew Sciabarra[edit]

Chris Matthew Sciabarra (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:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC, no reliable sources found in my WP:BEFORE. Most sources that focus on Sciabarra in this article were written by Sciabarra himself and are thus not WP:INDEPENDENT, the other good sources are all about his book Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. This book of his is (maybe) notable, but he certainly isn't. There is no need to merge this article into the book's page, considering that the book's article already talks about Sciabarra in its "background" section, I'm asking for a deletion. SparklyNights 21:24, 18 October 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. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R17 Ventures AG[edit]

R17 Ventures AG (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. Is WP:ADMASQ. Contested CSD hence AfD. Many primary sources and churnalism sources. Likely UPE. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Switzerland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Declined at AfC and then moved to mainspace on a new account's 11th edit. Nothing in the article is indicative of this being more than a marketing agency going about its business in its chosen market. The given references (locations, investments, inclusion in a "Clutch 100" fastest-growing list, intern scheme announcement, etc.) fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find another recent industry award ("best performance marketing agency in South Africa" at a Markets African Excellence Awards) but nothing indicative of attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does not speak for itself and explain how the company passes corporate notability, which is based on what third parties say about the company. This article is about what the company says about itself, which is common, but does not pass corporate notability. If the proponents will identify three sources, an analysis of those sources can be performed. The conduct of the proponents is typical either of ultras, fanatical editors, or of paid editors; but corporations don't have ultras, so draw your conclusion. The edit summary Perfectly Written and informative. is a red flag in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Timtrent - Be careful what you wish for. Don't nominate anything with 23 references for G7. It might be deleted. It will then spend seven days at Deletion Review, and then be Relisted by DRV, and then spend seven days at AFD anyway that you had tried to avoid. This time, you didn't get your wish, and that means only seven days rather than fourteen. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon I have more bizarre wishes than you could possibly know! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reasons as the two delete votes above mine. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with preceding contributors. There's not enough independent reliably sourced material to pass WP:ORGIND. Rupples (talk) 22:04, 24 October 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. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Mission[edit]

Global Mission (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)

Procedural nomination after RfD, where the outcome was restore article and send to AfD (it was a BLAR contested at RfD). Pinging participants of the RfD discussion: @Bkonrad, TartarTorte, Catfurball, The Banner, and Thryduulf:. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RFD-nomination can be found here. The Banner talk 08:56, 19 October 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. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivist periodicals[edit]

Objectivist periodicals (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 and WP:INDEPENDENT. This article is half about a list of periodicals that Ayn Rand wrote for, and the other half is about periodicals written by people who endorse her philosophy. All sources listed in this article that are used to make statements about periodics that Rand worked in are written by people who have worked in these periodicals and/or were friends of Rand herself before she died. Here are some examples:

  • Robert Hessen wrote for two of such periodicals, according to Hessen's article
  • Barbara Branden has worked for two of such periodicals, according to the article
  • Anne Heller was a personal friend of Rand before she died.
  • Leonard Peikoff was also a friend of Rand
  • Jennifer Burns seems to be the only person here who is independent of the subject.

All the other periodicals that were published independently of Rand are clearly not notable, given the poor sourcing. SparklyNights 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • An initial question for User:SparklyNights: The preface to Heller's biography of Rand says, "I never met her" and that Heller didn't even read Rand's books until she was in her 40s (i.e., after Rand died), so in what way was she "a personal friend of Rand"? --RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, it seems like I got it wrong about Heller. In this case, she is probably independent of the subject of this article. SparklyNights 21:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent reliable sources already cited in the article include the books by Burns, Gladstein, Heller, Perinn, and Sciabarra. There is also coverage in other independent sources such as Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism, Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult, and the academic essay collection A Companion To Ayn Rand. Whether some of the later publications merit inclusion is an article content question, but the core subject is clearly notable. --RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RL. While the content of the article can be debated, the fact that objectivist periodicals exists trumps any argument for deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ayn Rand page. It is about the work about Ayn Rand and her legacy.Topjur01 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a merger were desirable (although I don't think it is), then Objectivist movement would be a better target. Other people were involved in these publications, and some of them continued after Rand's death. Also adding another 1000 words to the 5800-word article about Rand is not reader-friendly. --RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RL0919. Core subject is notable. Sal2100 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 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 Cape Independence. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Republic[edit]

Cape Republic (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:NLAND and WP:GNG.  Lefcentreright  Discuss  20:52, 18 October 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. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Suprynowicz[edit]

Vin Suprynowicz (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 article presently has no citations containing WP:RS-based significant coverage of the subject, and my WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines failed to locate any. His appearance on one state ballot as a vice-presidential candidate on a third party-ticket in the 2000 election is insufficient to establish notabilty per WP:NPOL as well. Sal2100 (talk) 20:50, 18 October 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.

Gabriele de Seta[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition to Kamaran[edit]

Expedition to Kamaran (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it is quite possibly a hoax. For the sake of Wikipedia's integrity, I think this article should be deleted. If you search this in Google, everything points back to this article at most. Also, JSTOR has nothing. The sources may mention Kamaran in passing but do not actually discuss any expedition. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Indeed the article is a complete hoax. Not only was there never any Ottoman expedition against the Portuguese in Kamaran, but the island of Kamaran was never occupied by the Portuguese for them to be expelled from it in the first place, let alone "completely destroyed". Wareno (talk) 10:31, 19 October 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. Daniel (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Maghas[edit]

Siege of Maghas (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 saw the tag saying this page could be a hoax, and I am concerned that is indeed a hoax. If you search "Siege of Maghas" in Google, everything points back to this page or some mirror page. If you try Jstor, nothing shows up. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or WP:BLOWITUP (incase there's any willing participants to rewrite the whole article): First of all, thanks to the nominator for the deletion request. I was the one who added the hoax tag as the article is full of unreliable sources (see this deletion request where I gave explanations as to why the sources used in this article are unreliable) and folklore presented as historical facts. Though there are some mentions of the name "Siege of Mag(h)as",[2] we already have an article for the Alanian city in question (Maghas) where the siege is briefly explained. As I mentioned earlier, if there's any willing participants who have time to rewrite a whole article, then rewrite could be an option. Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ Wikipedia:Notability (people)#cite ref-note6 8-1
  2. ^ Latham-Sprinkle, John (2022). "The Alan Capital *Magas: A Preliminary Identification of Its Location". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 85 (1): 9. doi:10.1017/S0041977X22000453. S2CID 249556131. Retrieved 4 January 2023.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton Joseph Blackwell[edit]

Middleton Joseph Blackwell (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)

Do any of his accomplishments pass any inherently notable thresholds? I don't see that they do. The sources also seem wishy-washy to me. Uhooep (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's made it into Wikipedia because his son, Chris Blackwell, founded Island records. Blanche, the wife, appears to have had a more interesting life.[1] There is nothing in the current article to suggest that Middleton Blackwell is notable in Wikipedia's sense, and unfortunately the creator has been blocked for copyright violation, so we aren't in a position to find out what the sources said, specifically. This is a great pity, but in the absence of any other evidence, I'm leaning towards delete. Elemimele (talk) 19:05, 18 October 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. Daniel (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Zhekova[edit]

Lili Zhekova (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)

Former Bulgarian international footballer with 9 caps. I failed to find any significant coverage, therefore this article fails WP:GNG. TheInevitables (talk) 16:33, 18 October 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 14:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Batra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Siddharth Batra (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 fails WP:NPROF and ANYBIO. There is only one citation about the subject (This from Forbes) and it's a glowing piece not independent of the subject, possibly paid for. Nothing else I've found (you have to ignore the Bollywood personality of the same name) shows any notability of this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 18 October 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. Daniel (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Screens[edit]

Shine Screens (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 article does not have sufficient references to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations/companies (WP:ORG). The references currently included are primarily routine announcements about the company's upcoming/past productions. Akshithmanya talk 15:58, 18 October 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 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Nigam[edit]

Amber Nigam (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:GNG, lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Most of the existing sources are about the subject's company. The majority of the available sources primarily focus on the subject's company. Akshithmanya talk 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Akshithmanya talk 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - References are more about the companies than the founder. I found a few references in a search but nothing that could be considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with CNMall41 statement Worldiswide (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary, independent coverage of the subject. User:Let'srun 02:00, 21 October 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 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Uprising (1018)[edit]

Kyiv Uprising (1018) (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)

WP:CFORK covering topic already well described in Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis. Reading the latter it seems that such "uprising" isn't the most plausible end of the Bolesław I campaign, so nominated article can be also considered as possible WP:HOAX. Marcelus (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've seen hoaxes with better sources. Not worth a separate article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 22 October 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 14:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Sinner[edit]

Peter the Sinner (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)

Basically a hoax based around some very flimsy factual details: there is some mention in one or two sources about Mahoma Mofari, alias Pere Cirera, who was burned because of homosexuality.

There is apparently though zero evidence that he is known as "Peter the Sinner", that he is venerated anywhere by anyone, or that he has anything to do with the international day against homophobia. Fram (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or the WP:NVICTIM thresholds. While I wouldn't go as far as the nom (in using the term "hoax"), the only material sources do not connect the names "Pere Cirera" or "Peter the Sinner" with the person named "Mahoma Mofar". (In The Death Penalty in Late-Medieval Catalonia: Evidence and Significations (2019; Routledge) by Flocel Sabaté, for example, there nothing about the person converting to Christianity or changing their name or similar.) The reliance on non-reliable sources (including another Wikipedia article and the author's own YouTube channel) is also a significant concern. Even if we moved the article to "Mahoma Mofar", as the name used in the sources, if the subject is only materially known for their death, how would WP:NVICTIM not apply? Guliolopez (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regardless of whether this is technically a "hoax" or not it fails WP:NBIO. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 24 October 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 14:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesní stadion[edit]

Lesní stadion (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NSTADIUM. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article claims it was home to the football team from 1957 for a long time, but their current stadium has been in use since 1966. Even the club's own website doesn't mention that it used Na Lesní as a permanent home. C679 10:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and no sources Yoblyblob (talk) 14:27, 18 October 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 comedy films of the 2000s. Daniel (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just Sue Me[edit]

Just Sue Me (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing suitable or reliable was found in Newspapers.com. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Amazed there isn't a review to be found, I vaguely remember this film. Rotten Tomatoes has none, Gnewspapers only seems to have movie theater listings for it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The article could be improved if there was more sources to go along with it, but if there's not enough information presented in a long time period, then the article should be deleted. But, I think it should be improved, then it will convince other viewers that the article passes notability. Geko72290 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 07:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to List of comedy films of the 2000s per Mushy Yank's suggestion. The current refs are obviously deficient and fails GNG, a search on Google, Google Books, and TWL finds trivial mentions and this newspaper piece. However, it mentions the film first then cover it in four sentences (one quoting the director) and fails WP:SIGCOV IMo. VickKiang (talk) 23:41, 19 October 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 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Younis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marcus Younis (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)

Recreated shortly after previous AfD deletion without addressing any of the issues. My own WP:BEFORE does not find any sources compliant with WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, both of which require significant coverage to come from sources that are completely independent of Younis. Searches will likely yield Football Talent Scout, which appears to be a decent source at first glance but fails WP:RS requirements as the article is written by a guest account, so is no more reliable than Wikipedia itself or any other WP:UGC.

Source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://wswanderersfc.com.au/squads/adra6wrtnrz7de6pmaf1ugm50?slug=adra6wrtnrz7de6pmaf1ugm50&competition=300ig4lfofmkh3u971h34pbf8&teams=6h553bwfqkoxayuv80uikkn42&selected=MEN No This is his employer No No This is just a profile page on his own club website ✘ No
https://wswanderersfc.com.au/news/younis-meteoric-rise No This is his employer No Yes Contains detail about him but the source is not independent of him at all ✘ No
https://mens.nplnsw.com.au/2022/12/17/western-sydney-wanderers-ready-for-the-big-league/ No per SPORTBASIC "Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players." No No Mentioned twice ✘ No
https://keepup.com.au/a-league-men/fixtures/western-sydney-wanderers-vs-melbourne-city-15-01-2023/ Yes Yes No Mentioned twice ✘ No
https://wswanderersfc.com.au/news/younis-pens-two-year-scholarship-deal No This is his employer No No A basic contract renewal announcement with some quotes ✘ No
https://www.footballaustralia.com.au/news/australian-u-18-squad-face-some-europes-best No per SPORTBASIC "Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players." No No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.fpf.pt/pt/News/Todas-as-not%C3%ADcias/Not%C3%ADcia/news/40386/contextid/182 Yes Yes No Mentioned in the squad list and yellow card confirmed. At no point is Younis addressed in detail. ✘ No
https://aleagues.com.au/news/australia-a-leagues-socceroos-england-football-news/ Yes Probably debatable as to whether this is independent or not but I'll give benefit of the doubt. The coverage is trivial anyway. Yes No Mentioned only 3 times inside the match report ✘ No
https://www.socceroos.com.au/news/subway-young-socceroos-squad-named-marbella-week-football No per SPORTBASIC "Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players." No No Squad listing only ✘ No
https://footballtalentscout.net/2023/03/01/marcus-younis-australias-rising-star-by-jake-mcghee/ Yes No Written by a guest account. Anyone can write an article on Football Talent Scout. Yes More than a trivial mention of him ✘ 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}}.
  • Delete and SALT - per last AFD, what has changed? GiantSnowman 18:51, 11 October 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 13:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per source assessment, I couldn't find anything else. NotAGenious (talk) 16:37, 18 October 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 13:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Manno[edit]

Kevin Manno (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 significant coverage other than as the husband of Ali Fedotowsky. The only edits by creator User:Tvmediamanager are on this article, so WP:COI seems highly likely. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep Found a followup in Chicago Tribune & a feature in Illinois Entertainer which might be enough for WP:GNG. Flurrious (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 18 October 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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 23:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Emiko[edit]

Yemi Emiko (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)

Topic does not meet the general notability guidelines nor the SNG for politicians. A relative to the Olu of Warri and senatorial candidate that didn't win in 2015. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Biography of a businessman who is a relative of a traditional Nigerian king, the Olu of Warri. The subject does not inherit notability. The article reads like a resume. The article has been reference-bombed, but the references either are about the king, or are passing mentions. (After reading some of the references, I had to reread the article to verify that the subject of the BLP is only a member of the royal family and is not the elected king. The king does appear to be notable, but the king is not the subject of the biography.) The references are mostly either interviews or about the king, or press releases by the royal family.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 guardian.ng An interview with the subject as one of the royal electors about the selection of the king No Not about the subject Yes No
2 https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-58293447 A news story about the king Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes
3 www.thisdaylive.com/ Description of his involvement in a political campaign No, an interview Not about the subject Yes No
4 bellnewsonline.com Reads like a press release by the subject about his career No Yes Yes No
5 www.vanguardngr.com/ About his involvement in a political campaign Yes Yes Yes No
6 thenationonlineng.net An account of a birthday party for the king's wife Yes Not about the subject Yes No
7 guardian.ng/ Another interview No Yes Yes No
8 punchng.com Nigerian account of the murder of his son in the United States Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes
9 thecitypulsenews.com Another account of the murder of his son Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes
10 www.firstweeklymagazine.com Story about disappearance of a royal crown No, a press release Not about the subject Yes Yes
11 thenationonlineng.net Same story about disappearance of crown, therefore a press release No, a press release Not about the subject Yes Yes
12 tribuneonlineng.com Interview with the subject about the missing crown No, an interview Yes Yes No
13 tribuneonlineng.com An interview with the subject about royal politics No, an interview Yes Yes No
14 freshangleng.com Another interview about a royal issue No, an interview Yes Yes No
15 sunnewsonline.com Another interview about controversy about the election of the king No, an interview Yes Yes No
16 thenationonlineng.net An interview with his wife No No Yes No

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 20 October 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 14:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Andesikuteb Yakubu[edit]

Ali Andesikuteb Yakubu (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)

Topic does not meet the criteria for the notability nor the SNG for academics. H-index on G Scholar is 7 and 6 since 2018. Creator disputed DRAFTIFY process. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 12:28, 18 October 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. North America1000 11:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Uzbekistan Futsal League season[edit]

2012 Uzbekistan Futsal League season (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)

Similar case to 2022/2023 China Futsal Super League. This article has had no substantial prose since 2012 and I am not convinced that there is sufficient coverage from independent sources (see WP:IS) for this topic to have its own article. Uzbek and Russian Wikipedia only cite primary sources. I see no reason why this needs a separate article when Uzbekistan Futsal League summarises the top 3, which is enough. Wikipedia is not a free web host for every single league table of every single sport in existence, especially if the only other places hosting the table are non-independent sources like Futsal Planet and Uzbekistan Football Association. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 18 October 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. North America1000 11:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Giant Beast Wolfman vs. Godzilla[edit]

Legendary Giant Beast Wolfman vs. Godzilla (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 is a WP:CRUFT page about a non-notable fan film created by a non-notable film maker that fails WP:NFILM in several ways: it was not widely distributed; it is not historically notable; it is not recognized as notable by film historians/critics; it was never released commercially; it is not part of any documentary or retrospective; it has received no awards; it is not 'taught' as an academic subject; it is not a unique accomplishment; it does not involve the participation of notable people; it was never distributed in its home country (Japan), or indeed any other country. Also per WP:NFILM: films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. The subject also fails WP:N in general, having received no significant coverage in any reliable sources. Of the four citations in the article, the first and second are to an unreliable fan site (SciFi Japan), the fourth is to YouTube, and the third is to Dread Central, a site of questionable reliability. This is a 40-year-old, 26 minute duration, amateurish fan-film, and fan films are rarely notable for Wikipedia purposes. The "film" itself, it should be noted, is either incomplete or incoherent, having no discernible plot, story line, or narrative structure. Forty years after its "debut," there is no evidence whatsoever that it will ever be completed/improved. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated by the nom, this unreleased, unofficial fan film does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. The coverage of it is scant, at best, with the Dread Central source being the closest it comes to actual coverage. Searches did not turn up anything additional in reliable sources. The film does not even appear to be notable enough to be merged over to the main Godzilla (franchise) page for a mention there. If anyone is able to pull up any significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly Japanese sources that I might have missed, please ping me so I can take a look. But, I did note that, as far as I can tell, the Japanese Wikipedia does not have an article on this fanfilm to draw any sources from, so the prospects probably aren't great. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 18 October 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. North America1000 11:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeed (disambiguation)[edit]

Seeed (disambiguation) (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 a true DAB - only the band has an article with this name Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:21, 18 October 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! 06:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaiah Institute of Management Studies[edit]

Ramaiah Institute of Management Studies (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)

Promo piece on a non-notable private educational establishment. Rejected at AfC but moved into main space regardless. No point in moving back, as already rejected, and BEFORE came up with nothing that would establish notability. (If doing a search, note that this is different from Ramaiah Institute of Management despite the similar name.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:NSCHOOL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 18 October 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 Łeknica. Just a note: It's really "Merge and Redirect", not "Redirect and Merge". Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowa Łęknica[edit]

Nowa Łęknica (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)

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

As it says on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" (nieoficjalna osada). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is any place called Nowa Łęknica (or Nowa Łeknica) listed on the Polish regulation of place-names.

From the over-head satellite pictures it appears this is just a grouping of houses in the village of Łeknica.

Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition. You don't see, for example, a road-sign identifying this place as a named settlement, so it is not clear that the locals treat this as an existing place either - instead the sign outside the grouping of houses just says "Łeknica". It also has to be said that the title of this page appears to be the wrong spelling for a place that would necessarily be called Nowa Łeknica, so even if some information were found in future, this would be the wrong page for it. And even if it were the correct title, we still would be unlikely to have a page about it per WP:NOPAGE.

TL;DR - fails verification, GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these articles in general are incredibly annoying and I would say delete all, but this one in particular Yoblyblob (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge to Łeknica per Piotrus. Another bot-generated bogus town.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:38, 23 October 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! 06:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Trowbridge[edit]

Peter Trowbridge (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Promotionally written. Fails the general and professor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Keep. It may be worth doing a bit more reading about the subject's professional practice, academic standing, and publications. Landscape architecture (in the US, at least) was somewhat the poor-cousin of the field during much of the period the subject was in his prime. There might be more there than is readily apparent. Can we slow-walk this AfD and give me some time to follow-up? Also, would it be possible to add the "Deletion sorting" discussion link to Wikiproject Architecture? (If I knew how this was done, I'd happily do it myself.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Cornell emeritus professor acknowledged by their departmental history as having been significant in the expansion and acclaim of the department. Details of invited speaker talks at other departments give additional notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Far from my area but the co-authored book has 209 citations in GS, and so is likely to have reviews which might help flesh this article out. My experience writing about architects is that it's next to impossible to get free online sources for living ones, and the topic is extremely poorly covered in the Wikipedia Library. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the (much missed) DGG declined a prod with the summary "very highly notable--chair of department at Cornell!". Espresso Addict (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: being a head of department in Cornell is probably equivalent to a named professorship in many institutions, which would satisfy WP:NPROF, and if he was a proper editor rather than just on the editorial board of Journal of landscape and urban planning, that would also be sufficient (I couldn't find out; journals never seem to list former editors). Overall, he certainly fulfils the spirit of NPROF as being influential and highly-regarded by his peers (as evidenced by his professional committee activities). Elemimele (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the sourcing remains poor but I agree that head of department at Cornell is roughly equivalent to a name professorship so he meets WP:NPROF. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 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 Foreign relations of Ireland#Zambia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Zambia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ireland–Zambia relations (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)

Let's try this again. It's been 14+ years since the first AFD, consensus on what constitutes WP:SIGCOV can change, and many of the original participants have retired or been banned. As I said in my original nomination: "Topic fails general notability requirements, specifically there does not appear to be significant coverage of these countries' relations in sources which reliable, independent, and secondary. None are cited in article, and I couldn't locate in any myself." Yes there are now a few links to newspaper articles, but most are dead, and those that aren't are hardly coverage of these countries relations, in my opinion. Yilloslime (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see notable relations like significant trade or migration or state visits. Many countries give aid to Zambia, so the few million Ireland gives is rather routine. LibStar (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Foreign relations of Ireland#Zambia. As an ATD. Otherwise, as noted in the nom, there seems to be insufficient notability/coverage to warrant a standalone article. And, while I have read the earlier AfD and understand the "keep" arguments, they all seem to be based entirely on ROTM coverage of aid packages. Which don't discuss the topic (diplomatic relations between the two countries) in any material depth. That the article seems to stand almost ENTIRELY as a list of the loosely related news sources, found in the previous BEFORE but not associated with the text in ANY WAY, suggests (to me at least) that a standalone article isn't warranted. Guliolopez (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Ireland#Zambia. Having read the previous discussion, like Guliolopez said; I don't see anything discussing the diplomatic relations between the countries, only ones about the aid packages. There doesn't seem to be much to merge either, so just going for a redirect, though, if something does come up, I'm happy to add on to the redirect target. NotAGenious (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to say that as the nominator, I could get behind a redirect as an alternative to straight up deletion. Yilloslime (talk) 21:02, 23 October 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. Already Deleted (non-admin closure) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahab Alam[edit]

Sahab Alam (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 and WP:MUSIC, promotional UPE article created by a blocked sock (part of this sock farm). There is no SIGCOV I can find, and there is no significant achievements I can see as well. Another thing is, I see it was deleted from fawiki numerous times as not notable [2] [3] [4] despite socking attempts [5] and even salted twice: [6] [7], so if people who speaks the language natively is this certain he's not notable, I think he's not notable. Tehonk (talk) 03:33, 18 October 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 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections. This seems to be the preferred Merge target article. XFDCloser just allows for one Merge target but of course, content can be used in other articles as long as attribution is provided. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of US House speaker elections decided by multiple ballots[edit]

List of US House speaker elections decided by multiple ballots (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 concensus for fork, can be covered sufficiently at List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections Esolo5002 (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A content fork is a "piece of content [...] that has the same scope as another piece of content". This article is clearly a much narrower scope, and offers additional information in a concise format. Additionally, the list of all speaker elections is of enormous length already and inflating its size is not warranted, per WP:LENGTH. It also meets the criteria for stand-alone lists.[8]Hypnôs (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest retaining the current table format as it allows one to quickly compare them. I think it should be moved to one of the page and included in other using Transclusion, if it decided against keeping as separate page 2861969nyc (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections per everyone else. Corgi Stays (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with both using WP:TRANS as above. Not sure which page it should be moved to and which should use transclusion. However, I will say that having this as a separate page has proved useful to me by being available in ″see also″ sections. NHammen (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with both (transclusion) per above. This is a useful list and belongs on both pages if not its standalone article. Davey2116 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections as proposed by others. I also actually object to the inclusion of the current Speaker election on this list, and given that this list seems to have been created in response to the current election, question the need for a separate list. The reason is that, so far, the current speaker election does not qualify for inclusion on this list. It has gone multiple ballots, but it has not been decided yet, and therefore does not belong on a list of decided elections. It remains entirely possible that the current election will never be decided, and some other solution--like giving McHenry some additional powers without formally electing him speaker or formally resolving the election--may be adopted. So I favor a merge, but if we keep the list as is, the current election does not belong on this list until it has been decided, which it has not as yet. Dash77 (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Terrific table to have. Just does not need to be its own standalone page. SecretName101 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both with bias toward deletion if merge is unsuccessful. This does not pass WP:NLIST and is (contrary to opinion above) clearly a WP:CONTENTFORK. You don't have to replicate the entire scope to duplicate existing articles' coverage. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:48, 24 October 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 03:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BV Bhaskar[edit]

BV Bhaskar (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:NACTOR and not a notable celebrity cricketer. Previous edit looks like a fan page [9]. Seems to only play a "notable" role in Salaga (film), can redirect there [10]. Only one good source on entire internet which is not a passing mention which is already on the page. DareshMohan (talk) 03:17, 18 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Alam[edit]

Sina Alam (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)

Promotional UPE article with WP:REFBOMB created by a blocked sock (part of this sock farm) that doesn't look notable, references look very poor, there is even a Google search as reference, it doesn't look like it passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, that award is not a notable or significant thing as well. I see it was deleted from fawiki numerous times as not notable [11] [12] [13] and even salted at some point: [14], so if people who speaks this language natively and who can evaluate the sources better think he's not notable, I think he's not notable. Tehonk (talk) 03:17, 18 October 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 Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom. Given HighKing's thorough assessment of sources, I don't feel like I can close this discussion as Keep but there are a number of editors who value the content so I'm choosing the option of a Redirect as an ATD which preserves the content in case future sources can establish organizational notability. Since discussion in this AFD continued up until just a few hours ago, ordinarily I'd relist this discussion but after 3 relistings, that's not an acceptable option. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newcleo[edit]

Newcleo (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 WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of Newcleo, only routine financial information, as well as quoted claims from their CEOs with WP:PREDICTION claims. In future company may be notable, but right now it's just well written WP:CRUFT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The relevant notability guideline is WP:NCORP, and Newcleo meets the criteria of "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article itself cites several news media sources with significant coverage of Newcleo published in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Here is a small selection of these independent reliable secondary sources (with quotes to illustrate depth of coverage):
    • The Times (UK), British mini nuclear reactor firm plans €1bn fundraise": "Stefano Buono, chief executive, said Newcleo, which raised €300 million last year, did not need the money just yet... Newcleo's reactors will output about 200MW — many times smaller than regular nuclear power stations such as Sizewell. The reactors at the new Hinkley Point C can output 1.6GW. But Newcleo's reactors would be much cheaper to make, at about €1 billion each, and manufactured in a factory to enable rapid deployment."
    • The Times (UK), "Stefano Buono's Newcleo wins backing for AMR nuclear reactor": "He has invested $10 million in Newcleo and retains a 10 per cent stake after the founding capital raise, which has attracted external investors including Exor, the holding company controlled by the Agnelli family, and Ian Lundin, chairman of Lundin Energy... While Hinkley’s reactor will be cooled by pressurised water, Newcleo will use lead."
    • Il Foglio (Italy), "Il ceo di Newcleo ci spiega perché il nucleare del futuro è made in Italy": "c’era anche Newcleo, la pepita made in Italy del settore nucleare, che ha annunciato un investimento da 3 miliardi di euro nel periodo 2023-2030 per lo sviluppo del primo reattore modulare di quarta generazione da 30MWe e di un impianto per la produzione di combustibili nucleari innovativi. Con sede a Londra, la start-up è stata fondata nel 2021 dal fisico Stefano Buono, dall’ingegnere nucleare Luciano Cinotti, e da Élisabeth Rizzotti, fisica con un passato nella finanza. A Lione, nel giugno 2022, Newcleo ha aperto la sua filiale francese, dove impiega già 70 ingegneri e altro personale qualificato."
    • Bloomberg (United States), "Nuclear Power Startup Newcleo Raises $315 Million for UK, France Expansion: "Newcleo uses what’s known as a lead-cooled fast reactor, a next-generation technology that operates at atmospheric pressure, making it safer than commonly used high-pressure water reactors... In the UK and France, Newcleo is seeking government approval of building sites and operating permts."
OP's statement is not true even if we consider only English-language sources. However, notability is not only dependent on English-language sources and this company has received significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, in multiple countries (at least 3 countries shown above). VantBellypo (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newcleo has been subject to reliable sources (The Times, Bloomberg, Il Foglio) that show significant coverage (and not just passing mentions), as already described by User:VantBellypo. The Times even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor (i.e., Hinkley's). The above-mentioned sources are generally accepted sources on Wikipedia, they don't contain fan-based content and I thus doubt that the article is WP:CRUFT. The sources put a certain emphasis on, for example, the money that Newcleo has raised, which is not a prediction but a simple fact. This is also portrayed in FAZ, also a source generally accepted on Wikipedia. In addition to that, FAZ highlights Newcleo's technology, i.e., the use of nuclear waste as reactor fuel.[1] --81.110.177.209 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I appreciate the effort you've taken to provide quotes VantBellypo, it's not really clear from the quotes you provided that those sources meet there requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH, which excludes routine coverage such as funding announcements. Additionally, it is not completely clear that those sources meet WP:ORGIND, Il Foglio, for example , appears to be an interview. I'll try and do a search myself of course, but NCORP is supposed to be fairly strict. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom where it is currently mentioned. At this point, I haven't found any coverage that addresses the company directly to the level of detail required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage falls under examples of routine coverage, though there are enough mentions in coverage of broader topics that this would be a redirect with possibilities of spinning back out in the future, or perhaps at least covering in a bit more detail in an article about the history of development, or other such broader article. Of course, the existence of any future coverage would be speculation on my part. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the weekend looking up good supporting material and I suppose there's sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources to warrant an independent Newcleo article on Wikipedia. Please do me a favour and give some time to improve the article using this source material:

  • Le Monde: The article describes that Newcleo is becoming Europe's best-funded startup, which is somewhat remarkable, and it also describes that a protoype is already being built. In addition to that, it puts significant emphasis on the backgrounds and it describes Newcleo in reasonably good detail. I reckon that this Le Monde article alone is already indicative of why Wikipedia could have an article on Newcleo despite them not having produced any functional products yet.[2]
  • Börsen-Zeitung: A German-language source that is similar in content to the Le Monde source. It also describes the funding as unusually fast and remarkable, and it also describes Newcleo's technology. In addition to Le Monde, Börsen-Zeitung mentions that Newcleo plans to build an MOX fuel facility. Due to the nature of that source (Börsen-Zeitung translates into English as "stock exchange newspaper"), Börsen-Zeitung also explains where Newcleo has obtained its capital from.[3]
  • Ship Technology: The source announces that Newcleo has signed an agreement with Fincantieri and RINA to fund a feasibility study for nuclear use in the shipping industry.[4]
  • There's also been recent coverage in The Telegraph[5] and fDi Intelligence,[6] but those are at least to a certain degree interview-based articles, and I'm not sure whether they can be used to demonstrate Newcleo's notability. They should work as sources though as they're both reliable and secondary.

--81.110.177.209 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Plickert, Philip (2022-06-23). "Start-up Newcleo sammelt 300 Millionen für neue Atom-Entwicklungen". FAZ.NET (in German). Retrieved 2023-10-02.
  2. ^ Escande, Philippe (2023-03-21). "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe »". Le Monde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-10-09.
  3. ^ Rothbart, Karolin (2023-03-21): Atomenergie-Start-up hofft auf Milliardenfinanzierung – Newcleo wirbt mit sauberer und günstiger Kernkraft, Börsen-Zeitung, No. 56, p. 11
  4. ^ Vitale, Cat (2023-07-26). "Newcleo signs major agreement for nuclear naval propulsion study". Ship Technology. Retrieved 2023-10-09.
  5. ^ Mustoe, Howard (2023-09-17). "France is more supportive of us than Britain, says UK nuclear startup". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2023-10-09.
  6. ^ "Newcleo's atomic push: safer, cleaner, cheaper". fDiIntelligence.com. 2023-09-25. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, this is looking like a Keep or No consensus closure. I don't see support for Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • VantBellypo has looked at four sources through the lens of NCORP and says they meet the criteria. Unfortunately I cannot fathom how VantBellypo can say they meet NCOEP since none of those articles contain "Independent Content" - that is "original and independent opinion", etc, and they all clearly fail WP:ORGIND.
  • The first Times article is PR, relying entirely on quotes from the CEO and information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and we can see the text is peppered throughout with quotes, fails ORGIND.
  • The next Times article is older, from 2021, and is also PR and talks about the company's future plans and a profile on the CEO. It contains no "Independent Content" and relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company. It also has no in-depth information on the company, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The anon source says this article is also good because it even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor - no it doesn't, it repeats information from the CEO about his aims.
  • The Il Foglio article is also PR - the headline even starts with "The CEO of Newcleo explains..." and it is a verbatim interview. It contains no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. The anon IP also likes this article saying it is "significant coverage" but doesn't appear to be aware of the "Independent Content" requirement. The Anon IP also makes an argument about those being "acceptable sources" - which they are for supporting information within the article, but they aren't for meeting the criteria for establishing notability, those are two different standards.
  • The Bloomberg article dated June 20 2022 is based entirely from this company announcement of the same date. Much of what Bloomberg publishes is related to announcements and PR. Lots of publications do this - here's another from moneycontrol.com. Here's another again from tech.eu. All dated June 20. None of these contain "Independent Content" and they all fail ORGIND.
  • The Anon IP also provided 6 other sources.
  • Faz.net is dated 3 days after the PR flurry for the funding announcement but it doesn't add anything new to what we learned from the announcement, also relies on quotations from the CEO, has no discernible "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • Le Monde article is based on yet another company announcement and is what is known as a "puff profile", essentially regurgitating positive information about the company and their execs. Even the headline puts the claim in "quotes". It is (not coincidentally) dated one day after this announcement by the company which has all the same info. Same sort of article as this from Bloomberg or this from News in France. Fails ORGIND, just more regurgitated PR and a puff profile.
  • The Ship Technology article is dated the very next day after the same company PR with no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND
  • The Telegraph article is an interview with the CEO with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • The fdi intelligence article is another puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company/execs with no sign of any "Independent Content" whatsoever, fails ORGIND.
  • Indefensible provides links to two articles available in ProQuest.
  • The first from MarineLog beings by examining the question on whether a "nuclear option" would solve emissions issues for ships and the first number of paragraphs are devoted to a different set of companies and their investigations. The last half or so of the article mentions the feasibility study involving the topic company's technology (as mentioned in the Ship Technology article above) and then provides a (very) simple overview of the company and how the topic company's reactors work all of which is available on the website and in most announcements. Fails ORGIND.
  • The final source is from Contify Energy News and it says very clearly that it is an "Original Press Release". I've no idea why someone thinks Press Release meet NCORP criteria - they don't. Fails ORGIND.
From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department - which based on the amount of money it raises, it really should. Some editors appear to consider any old "significant coverage" is sufficient to meet NCORP criteria. That isn't the case. The *content* must be examined and must contain "Independent Content" as per the guidelines. None of these do. This company hasn't build anything yet and is drumming up business - WP:TOOSOON applies and while I wouldn't have suggested a redirect myself, the suggestion is good seeing as the company is mentioned already. HighKing++ 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources online to support NCORP for this subject. The MarineLog ref should count. Here are some more https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788723615/12150691EEE1421FPQ/36, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788674346/12150691EEE1421FPQ/37, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2759212561/12150691EEE1421FPQ/19. All of these are independent as far as I can tell, but I do not have more time right now to look at other sources. - Indefensible (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the MarineLog ref count? Can you do a little better explaining things rather than just throwing more refs in here, as if somehow that explains things? What material is in the Marineref article that isn't simply regurgitated from their announcement, and if you do find "new" "Independent Content", how much of it is "in-depth"? Cos that's the test - in-depth "Independent Content", not just published "independently" which is what you appear to be relying on, but also that the *content* is independent.
Looking at your three new refs, the first is a copy of the "Le Monde" article from 21 March 2023. Total regurgitation of company bumpf with no "Independent Content" at all. Compare its content with, for example, this article in BNN which is almost identical and both based on the same company-provided material.
The second link appears to omit the headline which you can see here which reads "Newcleo announces plans for €1bn fundraiser as it targets UK nuclear industry". The entire article is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND. Here's an even better and more detailed article published in Nuclear Engineerin International the next day but which is also based on the announcement and also fails ORGIND. Or this one in The Times published on the same day, contains the same information based on the Announcement, also fails ORGIND and which was a follow-on article from this one in January where the topic company pre-announced their intention. That also fails ORGIND because it is also based entirely on company PR.
The last reference is this one from the Financial Times. The part about the topic company is three sentences and the last sentence is based on a quote from the CEO, leaving two sentences, both of which are a mere standard description of the company and a lack of "Independent Content", thereby failing ORGIND.
Can you perhaps check before you produce any more refs that the material isn't just regurgitated PR or based entirely on an interview? Try to at least identify a paragraph or something which contains "Independent Content"? HighKing++ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison, but I disagree with your characterization of articles as lacking ORGIND based on just "puff pieces" from the company. These are secondary coverage in reliable sources. Based on the machine translation of this article, it discusses risks and challenges rather than just positive aspects of the fundraising. - Indefensible (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment concerns the publisher being unconnected with the topic company. The guidelines also require an analysis of the *content* - specifically, what paragraphs can you identify that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So not regurgitated or unattributed content. HighKing++ 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand independence, although others have said the same thing about me. Obviously there is a disagreement. Let us stick with the reference from Le Monde at least for now, since it proves the point and Le Monde is generally considered a reliable source.
(Per Le Monde's Wiki article, "Le Monde is considered one of the French newspapers of record, along with Libération and Le Figaro. A Reuters Institute poll in 2021 found that Le Monde is the most trusted French newspaper." So there should not be much controversy over using a reference from Le Monde in general. You previously wrote that "From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department," but claiming Le Monde is simply writing "puff pieces" that are repackaged PR from the subject is degradatory to Le Monde's editorial process--I do not see any disclaimer they are publishing a paid article for the subject here.)
In general, well-known businesses (of varying notability) have journalists and business analysts covering them, especially for startups or public companies, such as for investing purposes. (Put WP:ROUTINE aside for now, that is a separate argument.) Reviewing a press release shortly after publication is a completely normal and respectable activity for them to be doing. So your concern about the article closely following the press release is fundamentally not really a major issue. Of course if their article had zero bearing on the company's activities, it would be completely independent but would also probably be completely useless if not made-up fiction. What Le Monde is doing is providing secondary coverage which is based on but independent of the subject.
In particular, the press release https://www.newcleo.com/press-releases/newcleo-launches-equity-raise-of-up-to-e1bn-for-its-unique-circular-next-generation-nuclear-energy-solution/ you pointed at is in English, and there is no French version that I can see from the company. Le Monde had to translate it before covering in French, which is already a sort of analysis. Then if you read the article without just writing it off completely, you can see there are notable differences between it and the press release.
For example, the press release from Newcleo mentions "risk" but only in terms of nuclear proliferation. In the article by Le Monde, they mention risk in terms of technical reactor operation. And then in the Newcleo press release, they mention "challenges" not to the company but rather in terms of global sustainability goals and how the company will help meet them, whereas critically Le Monde (based on translation) uses challenges and problems (which is not mentioned in the press release) in terms of business operations due to "a technology...[that was] abandoned in 1997 by the French government, after countless technical problems, an exorbitant cost and the considerable mobilization of environmentalists." That is clearly a different meaning and independent analysis.
Therefore I think your analysis is wrong. - Indefensible (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison... It's literally the first source you linked in your second comment, ProQuest document 2788723615, I'm not sure what you could mean by this Indefensible? Are you saying that you haven't read it? I was wondering why you linked it again. But look, if you insist they meet ORGCRIT we can list it at RSN, OK? Just give me a day or two to write something up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that I can see the article on ProQuest but not on Le Monde's website because of the paywall. On Le Monde, the article title appears to be "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe" but on ProQuest the article is titled "Le nucléaire se régénère par les start-up". There is obviously a difference there, right? I cannot look at the other version to compare. In any case, Le Monde is providing secondary coverage on the subject, there is no direct input from the primary source that I can see based on translation. - Indefensible (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Here based on this posting. I have a seen a lot of misunderstanding about WP:NCORP in AfD discussions lately, especially when it comes to WP:SIRS. It is not just about having sources, it is the evaluation of these sources which determines notability for companies. In order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance. The company can be verified and sources exists (although not to meet NCORP), so a redirect would be a suitable alternative to deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to where? You need a proposed target when voting to redirect. - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indefensible:, the only thing "need[ed]" when voting in AfD discussions is competency. That would include reviewing the context of other people's votes prior to asking such questions. I stated "in order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance." The assessment by HighKing includes agreeing that the redirect target proposed by Alpha3031 as an alternative to deletion (pinging both users in case I misunderstood their contention).--CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, I was just asking for clarification instead of making a mistaken assumption as to your position. There are foreseeable cases where you agree in part or with the general argument but not with the specific conclusion. We should try having unambiguous communications to avoid misunderstandings.
In any case, I disagree with HighKigh's assessment per my reply above. What you should also understand is that your understanding of policy is not objectively "correct" but rather subjective. At least, that is my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then make your case on why this meets WP:NCORP using WP:SIRS instead of making accusations about people being subjective. Simply stating "subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements" while providing two sources that fail WP:ORGCRIT is not going to do it. I have both been opining in deletion discussions for a long time based on current consensus on those guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then propose changing them. In the meantime, WP:AGF as just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them "wrong."--CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, did you even read my rebuttal to HighKing? Being subjective is not an accusation, it is a simple fact. I noted my opinion for consistency with that fact.
All I asked for was clarification on your redirect target, nothing more. But if you want to imply my lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I think you should better review your own misunderstandings first. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 24 October 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 Totally Insane. I'm concerned with closing this discussion. If editors want to take further action, they can be Bold or have talk page discussion about future action that might be pursued. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Da Game of Life[edit]

Da Game of Life (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 fails WP:NALBUMS. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 18 October 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. While an argument could be made for a No consensus closure, those arguing to Keep this article have brought forth reviews that satisfy our notability standards for books. If there is a concern about COI editing, a discussion on that issue can occur on the article talk page or at COIN. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power Without Glory (2015 book)[edit]

Power Without Glory (2015 book) (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 convinced that this in any way meets the notability criteria for books. I only did a web search because it's a fairly recent book and that should produce good enough sources, but all I found was a review from the Victorian Historic Racing Register, which just ain't gonna cut it. The article was added by Tsrwright, the book's author, starting with this edit to the page about the notable novel with the same title, before it was split off later (also see this editor assistance request). I found out about this situation after the author contacted me because they were caught up in an IP block I'd performed. Graham87 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your research didn't go too far, Graham. The book is covered in depth in the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com. It received an Award of Distinction 2016 from the Society of Automotive Historians. It was shortlisted for the UK Motoring Book of the Year awards 2106. It had numerous favourable reviews by the journals of record as listed at the above website.
The unannounced blocking of my log-in to Wikipedia for some years and the new proposal to delete mention of my book Power Without Glory ... was and would be unsatisfactory. Power Without Glory.... was the product of years of research and is the definitive account of its subject.
On the other hand I must point out that Wikipedia has many errors contributed by people who must have done little or no research. It should not be thumbing its nose at genuine contributors. Tsrwright (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, appreciate the desire to improve Wikipedia. Before making further edits to that article, you likely want to review our conflict of interest guidelines. Also if you like, take a look at the guidelines for reliable sources that we use to construct articles. If you can point us to further independent, reliable sources, such as professional reviews, it will aid in keeping this article. I would suggest not adding them to the article yourself due to the apparent conflict of interest. —siroχo 06:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsrwright: You said that Graham's research 'didn't go too far', without providing any sources to show that Power Without Glory does actually meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Can you provide sources that you think meet one of these guidelines? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's an in-depth review from a magazine (Dixon, Mark, and David Lillywhite. 2016. Power without glory: Racing the big-twin cooper. Octane. [16]) —siroχo 06:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably not as in-depth as it first appears; that book is the first of eight to appear in that review, which can be accessed through The Wikipedia Library (neither of the others have articles ... though one of the authors there who specialises in books about racing, Tom Rubython, does have a page here ... so does Brian Sewell, though he's better known as an art critic). We just tend to be more likely to have articles about authors than their non-fiction books ... except in cases like Guns, Germs, and Steel. Graham87 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The ProQuest link I provided (also accessible through TWL) is 416 words dedicated to this subject, I believe it's the same review as the one in the first image you linked in your next comment. —siroχo 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for reviews of the book, the publisher's website has this and this. Being book of the month in Octane is the best of a bad bunch for asserting notability on Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Via your links, I saw [17] which has at 2 or 3 more reviews that would count towards GNG
      1. This in-depth review from The Automobile. [18][19].
      2. This in-depth review in Speedscene,[20] author is credited as "JS", probably credited at the start of the review section or on the masthead.
      3. This in-depth review by David Moore, publication unknown [21].
      There was also a review from VSCC Bulletin [22] that notes the author is a member of the club. It's probably usable in the article but may not be independent for our purposes.
      —siroχo 08:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BOOKCRIT.C1 / GNG. Based on the above comments, we have two or more independent reviews in magazines with SIGCOV:
    1. Octane ([23] or [24])
    2. The Automobile ([25] and [26])
    3. Speedscene ([27]).
—siroχo 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reception section and reworked the article a bit based on the reviews above. Should be in a better state now. —siroχo 08:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly ... surprised and kinda shocked with the precedent this kind of !vote sets. So all you need to do is write a book about a super-niche subject, get it reviewed favourably in a few specialty publications about said subject that are by no means of general interest, and, hey presto, it's on Wikipedia? This goes strongly against general precedent and just the general sense of coverage I get by reading other book articles in Category:Australian non-fiction books. To put it another way: if this book is kept, there are thousands of others that could plausibly get articles here that I'd never think to write about in a million years. OK I'll shut up now, but I couldn't let this go uncommented ... Graham87 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the reasonable requirement that people do not write their own reviews I submit that the entry should stand, or someone else write it because it is not a review, it is only a statement of fact. The title chosen was a play with the title of a book which was called 'The Power and the Glory which was about grand prix racing cars - the cars I was writing about had lots of power for their weight but didn't have any glory. That left me with a title which was the same an Australian novel of no particular merit by Frank Hardy which does have space on Wikipedia. There I wrote a short footnote explaining that there was another book with the same title and it was about Cooper racing cars. They-who-must-be-obeyed objected and deleted my footnote so I wrote a short separate entry. I feel Wikipedia should provide in some way for their being ,multiple books with the same title. I must have a look- how it deals with The Power and the Glory. Tsrwright (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see there are numerous entries for 'The Power and the Glory' including such as The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album). If a rock album could be listed then so should a well researched, award winning book. Tsrwright (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Wikipedia mentions the TV series The Power and the Glory but not the book. Tsrwright (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that helps Tsrwright (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, tbat helps TW
h Tsrwright (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you delete stuff? Tsrwright (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album) has much better sourcing from much more commonly used sources on Wikipedia than this book does and probably ever will. Graham87 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are a few books with this name (the short name at least, as in the title of the article here). I can't find ANY reviews of this book about racing cars, most are for an Australian book. There appears to be one listed already in the article, seems fine. The others don't have a url so I can't evaluate them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Urls are higher up in this discussion. —siroχo 15:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention National Library of Australia Doug butler (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The National Library of Australia aims to contain pretty much every book published in the country. Graham87 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence irrelevant ? Doug butler (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont understand this bit of the discussion. The book is catalogued in publication by the Australian National Library and a copy is held there. It is listed on Worldcat at https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3APower+without+glory&limit=10&offset=11
    There are copies in a number of libraries around the world. As previously noted it was favourably reviewed by the significant journals in its field, The Automoblile and Octane. Copies of these and other reviews appear on the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com but you do have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the home page .to find them but that doesn't take too long
    I don't understand how there can be a vote for delete simply because one person can't find all the reviews. Perhaps the problem lies with this not being a subject of interest to some of the people here. Anyway, there is a Loose Fillings article on line that lists some of the other reviews dated 03/12/2015 such as the following
    John Staveley in The Bulletin of the Vintage Sports Car Club
    On first opening this heavy, well produced book it immediately becomes apparent that it is … a vibrant story of motor racing starting before the turn of the twentieth century but quickly moving on to post World War 2 airfield circuits.
    … an important work, written in an entertaining style, beautifully illustrated and great value. What a good book! Highly recommended.
    Doug Nye, author of Cooper Cars on the Nostalgia Forum (an Autocar online forum)
    … here’s a beautifully-designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history—really well worth the money. Respect!
    He has spread his remit to cover the entire background story of small capacity competition cars after much diligent research, and deals with the nativity of the 500cc movement itself in really interesting depth. I rate it as an important, hefty, and good looking addition to any real motor sport enthusiast’s book shelf.
    John Medley, author of Bathurst – Cradle of Australian Motor Racing in The Oily Rag
    This is a marvellous book. You should buy it. It is filled with fascinating detail, a clear story line, broad and deep in its history and humanity, astonishing in its memorabilia and automobiliana, the author’s research and footnoting a model for other writers, the author’s hands-on experience in the field impeccably unmatched … The book is well produced, thoughtfully designed, and too heavy to read in bed.
    David Moore, Shelsley Walsh archivist in MAC News (Midland Automobile Club
    This excellent book is so much more than the title suggests as it covers a wide motor racing history … the JAP and Vincent units are fully illustrated by the author who clearly knows his subject in great depth … Interestingly, the author not only describes the origins of the cars themselves but also paints vivid pictures of the motor racing, social and political scenes of their eras.
    Jerry Sturman in Speedscene, journal of the Hillclimb and Sprint Association
    Fills a significant gap in motorsport history … All enthusiasts will want to have this one on their shelves … Entertainingly written and superbly laid out … the book is a visual treat as well as being a meticulously researched, in-depth survey of the history and development of the motorcycle V-twin engine in competition.
    Mike Cooper, Managing Director, Cooper Car Company Ltd
    I have been buried in the book all weekend. It is a fascinating read and I am sure many other motor racing enthusiasts will really enjoy it. Tsrwright (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, for copies of published reviews go to www.loosefillings.com and select Power Without Glory in the top banner. Tsrwright (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reproduced in LooseFillings' blurb are: Full page review by Mark Dixon and David Lillywhite of Octane magazine (and voted "Book of the Month" for February 2016); Two columns by "SS" in Automobile magazine of January 2016; Half a page by "JRCS" in the Winter 2015 Bulletin of VSCC (of which Wright is a member); Two pages by Stephen Dalton in the Mini Cooper Register (date not given); and a half page by JS in SpeedScene (date not given). All British or Australian publications. The Doug Nye review alluded to is unfortunately not reproduced. Doug butler (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On further reflection, this book, like many in my library, is a reliable source for improving articles (as Wright) has so usefully contributed to the article on J. A. Prestwich Industries, but not yet part of the motor racing canon as are several by Doug Nye, none of which AFAIK is the subject of an article. Doug butler (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note for closer: Doug butler is the person who originally split the article into its own page. I'm adding this comment out of chronological order because I think it's far more important for closing this discussion than the comments by the book's author below. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Butler posted the separate article way back when, but after all these years he thinks it should be deleted! Tsrwright (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think whether or not Doug Nye books are mentioned on Wikipedia is the issue, Doug (Butler). Presumably nobody has put up information about any of Doug's books but that is hardly a reason for excluding my book which should be judged on its merits not by whether Wikipedia adequately covers other books.
    I initially posted a brief note on the original Power Without Glory page that there was another book with the same main title and that simple fact surely ought to be on the record. When that was rejected by other contributors I created my own, very simple, factual record which is that which is now under discussion.
    I have made some minor changes to the current page to better describe the book's significance in first documenting some of the key influences on the design of the modern racing car and I hope that helps. If that and any other changes are not good enough for Wikipedia's standards then just for the completeness of the facts something needs to be stated on the 'other' book's entry.
    Meanwhile, back to Doug and the question of the source of his review of the book which I think was online. I don't have that reference but here is his personal comment by email back in 2015:
Extended content
*:On 6 November 2015 at 23:34, Doug Nye wrote:
  • WOW Terry,
    Great piece of work. Just arrived. I LOVE it!
    (redacted)
    On 7 Nov 2015, at 02:26, Terry Wright wrote:
    Thank you very much, Doug, I very much appreciate the kind words. How do you feel about me using a sentence of yours on my Facebook page ... ?
    (redacted)
    Your daughters certainly did a great job for you Terry. For your Facebook page by all means use anything you like. For example: “I was expecting a pretty basic agricultural old banger of a book - instead here’s a beautifully designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history - really well worth the money. Respect!”
    Best - Doug
  • Tsrwright (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a summary of what secondary sources say about a topic, not what other people privately think of it. I have taken the liberty of hiding the email to hopefully make the discussion easier to read for everyone. If I've messed up the formatting while doing so, feel free to fix it.
    As for the argument about precedent, this article is just ... way out of range of what is normal here. To make an analogy in a different topic, federal and state politicians are inherently notable here; the notability of this book compared to most non-fiction works on Wikipedia is like comparing the notability of the current Australian Prime Minister to a random council member of a small shire (let's pick on the City of Busselton where I live for an example). Newspaper coverage of said council member would only be restricted to the Busselton area except in extremely unusual circumstances, just as coverage of a book about a very niche topic like this one is only restricted to special interest magazines/websites about that topic. The essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is tangentially relevant.
    Also, Tsrwright, if I'd noticed your edits to the Power Without Glory novel page in 2015, I would have simply reverted them as self-promotion ... as would have many many other Wikipedia editors. You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming a very twisted argument and I take exception to the statement, 'You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long'. I did not need a line or two on Wikipedia for promotional purposes; all I did was turn to Wikipedia simply to update its record of facts. I am not a philosopher so I have to rely on commonsense which tells me that just like the earth being round, it is a fact that this book meets the criterion of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Any other ideas such as 'self-promotion' and this being 'a book about a very niche topic' are simply opinion. It also suggests that what you regard as 'notable' is very much influenced by what you are interested in and that does not speak well of Wikipedia. Tsrwright (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having tagged a few australian motorsport article talk pages, and motorsport articles in my time, I find the lack of a broad set of WP:RS to substantiate the notability and it is sufficient argument to delete. There is nothing from this discussion above that convinces me otherwise. Admittedly book stubs are hard at times to find enough reviews in reasonable third party sources, but that should not be an argument to keep. JarrahTree 06:24, 6 October 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. Dixon, Mark; Lillywhite, David (February 2016). "Power without glory: Racing the big-twin Cooper". Octane. No. 152. p. 166. ProQuest 1777019207.

      The review provides 416 words about the subject. The review notes: "The sub-line on the front cover says 'Racing the Big-Twin Cooper' but this is so much more than that. It's better described in the blurb on the back: ... And actually, it's a bit more than that too, because in exploring the development of the first Cooper racing cars, and their predecessors in Great Britain and the USA, author Terry Wright also examines the conditions in which the populaces of the two countries were living before and after World War Two. All this turns what might have been a dry tome into a genuinely entertaining read. ... To help explain those racing scenes, Wright adds in fascinating social history of the period, which brings to life the wonderfully varied (and beautifully reproduced) archive pictures of cyclecars, midget racers and specials driven mostly sideways by their gung-ho owners, wearing little if no protective gear. For those images alone, the book is worth every penny of the £55 cover price. That it's a great read as well is simply a huge bonus."

    2. Mallett, Delwyn (January 2016). "Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper". The Automobile. pp. 83–84.

      The automobile historian G. N. Georgano said, "The Automobile is the only motoring magazine that I read from cover to cover. When it arrives, treat all other magazines are put aside until I have studied it thoroughly’." The review notes: "With the scene set, the latter part of Terry's book concentrates on racing and hill climbing in the UK and Europe from 1948. Event and personality photographs are outstanding, and include work by such photographers as Klemantaski. Terry's sense of history survives, with the rear-engine Benz representing Germany and the rather disturbing Elfe, France. One particularly evocative pair of shots shows manufacture under way in the Cooper garage, contrasted with the vast Brabazon assembly hall. A particular strength of the action shots is captions giving intelligent summaries of each driver's style and success or failure, while the main text goes into detail on performance and incidents during practice as well as in the event. ... The cover price of this book, not cheap for a specialised publication, is justified by the quality of production and breadth of coverage. Wright gives a balanced picture of the light racing car renaissance born, primarily, from a British willingness to get stuck in and build a car from available parts. To stand a chance, the result had to be a light, simple and economical racer which could be run successfully by amateurs in the face of more expensive and complex designs. Book and philosophy are recommended."

    3. The other reviews listed by siroxo.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there might be some COI editing going on, focusing the discussion on the book's author and their activity on Wikipedia takes away attention from what this discussion should be about which is assessing the sources brought forward by editors who are participating here. Less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest the posting by Cunard is a sufficient statement of the book's qualification for a Wikipedia entry. If the contents are relevant then I believe it further qualifies as 'notable' because it is an authoritative account of the largely undocumented origins and early development of the modern open-wheeled racing car. Tsrwright (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the author of the book, you have little standing to make such comments. [[Notability on Wikipedia is not about how a work fills a niche; it's about whether it's received enough attention from the world at large to get an article here. As the nominator of this discussion, I don't think it has. I think the cited reviews are too specialised to really assert notability here. While researching the publisher, I noticed that the book's author helps run the publishing company,, making this book effectively self-published. I also question if there are any relationships (even monetary ones) between the book's author, publishers, and reviewers that may make the reviews less independent than they appear; the book's in a tiny niche, after all. I also notice that the notability criterion about reviews that this AFD hinges on has been strongly questioned in the past; I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) to find out if we can get some more input. Graham87 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It appears from my reading of it that the discussion on deleting the criterion of two reviews ended in 2020 with numerous votes against change so surely that matter was dealt with then. Bear in mind that the book in question, of which I am the author and one of the publishers, had reviews from at least two (there might have been three, I forget) of the leading independent journals plus a number from lesser but still independent journals as well as one undisputed authority. It might also be noted that these reviews were laudatory as well as there being an award from the Society of Automotive Historians. As far as I can tell the 'notability' criterion has been met. That being so, deletion should require evidence that diminishes that notability but so far there has been none other than a claim, such as above, that this book is in a 'tiny niche' which I dispute. That raises the question is how large does a niche have to be for the book not to be excluded from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of niche information, tiny and otherwise, and surely that is one of its strengths. Tsrwright (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, there are no relationships monetary or otherwise between the book's author and publisher (who were in Sydney, Australia), and the reviewers who were mainly in England. As wisely stated earlier, less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion. Tsrwright (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:COI editing is a red herring that can be dealt with at other venues. It seems to have been demonstrated already in this discussion that the article's subject meets the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I do intuitively lean towards deletion but I won't cast a !vote as I am inexperienced when it comes to writing about books and this is really a "vibe of the thing" argument. Something just seems a bit off to me about a book being able to qualify for an article with two reviews, especially when those reviews are drawn from specialist motorsport sources rather than general media.I suspect there is something more to the "non-trivial" standard than what has been brought up in this discussion. This just doesn't seem like the sort of book I would expect to have a Wikipedia article, but it wouldn't be the first surprise this site has given me. I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting personal again! If you have something to say to the Nostalgia Forum you should say it there. Tsrwright (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Terry, I have no obligation to engage with you off Wikipedia. However, your conduct there suggests you are not here to build an encyclopaedia. But as you've been so eager to stress, you're not the topic of this discussion, the article is, so perhaps focus in, back off, and respect the processes of the editing community instead of talking shit on the Autosport forums. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      5225C's comment I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums surely has no place in this discussion with the perjorative use of 'behaviour' as if I have somehow done something wrong. I can only assume that as the author of the above talking shit on the Autosport forums his were the comments deleted by the moderators in a discussion on Wikepedia's notability requirements for articles on books 5225C is a university student and given his rekarks above, I am surprised that he or she has any status on Wikipwedia. Tsrwright (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      his or her remarks Tsrwright (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I said what I said, escalate it if you like. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More source weighing is needed. If there are conduct issues, please raise at AN/I or other appropriate venue. Tswright, I would advise that you've made your case. You do not need to reply to every editor's input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agreed, but Wikipedia people should cut out the personal comments as previously requested. Tsrwright (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In-depth and reliably published reviews have been listed above. That is all that is needed for GNG. That some editors think the topic and the reviews specialized is irrelevant; that is not part of the GNG criteria. If you think this sort of topic should not have an article, you need to change the notability criteria to be based on something other than the existence of in-depth reliable independent sources, rather than pretending that those sources somehow don't count for reasons that are not part of the criteria. (Here from a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books).) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's hardly a better reason to have an article about a book than substantial reviews in appropriate publications. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HumanBodyPiloter5, David Eppstein, and XOR'easter. GNG trumps SNGs such as WP:NB, which itself says "A book that meets ... the general notability guideline ... and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article". ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:51, 21 October 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 Same-sex marriage in Kentucky. Those arguing to keep provide some evidence of SIGCOV, but this coverage isn't so voluminous that it obviously necessitates a standalone article, and no explicit argument has been provided as to why the material cannot be covered at the parent article. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Equality Federation v. Beshear[edit]

Kentucky Equality Federation v. Beshear (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 is one of a WP:Walled garden of articles related to Jordan Palmer (social activist). He has claimed credit for bringing same-sex marriage to Kentucky based on his involvement with this case. As I understand it, though, Bourke v. Beshear was the key Kentucky marriage case. gnu57 00:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and Kentucky. gnu57 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated the Palmer article for deletion also; it relies on primary sources or a few press releases. That doesn't help notability here either, but doesn't affect the !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not accurate. It CLEARLY lists newspaper articles. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two newspaper articles and four or more press releases and primary sources. It does not have a larger number of newspaper articles. I'm sorry, but 4 is the larger number and I stand by my statement. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The C-J is part of USA Today now, and most of the staff has changed, or downsized because it is sadly dying industry, the same with the Herald-Leader. The Herald-Leader has also had lots of data loss from changes serves to AWS, etc. and a lot of information has been lost forever. The same is true with the Courier-Journal. I have an account with both, and articles are completely gone because of management and server changes. I honestly didn't know I still had an account with both newspapers because it is digital only, but even I do not recall the last time I read anything they published.
    The Kentucky Post (the domain is now owned by a TV station) and the Kentucky Enquirer are gone (Northern KY) and even EthicsDaily.com which this news article originally referenced (https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html) are also gone and forwards to another site.
    I was at a protest with Jordan Palmer in the early 2000's before that organization was founded; with Fletcher was governor. To make things worse, the Herald Leader used blogs for their top journalists (now gone except for Bill Estep), but the blogs did not survive the transfers (https://bsky.app/profile/BGPolitics this is what is goes to now). Even LEO Weekly does not have articles older than 2014. So, I am done with it. I think this is why the backed-up news on their own, so that it is preserved.
    They can do whatever they want to do with the articles in question. My nieces and nephews, in their early 20's have no idea what Wikipedia is nor have they ever read a newspaper, sadly they get their news on TikTok and YouTube's "shorts". This is the end for me and Wikipedia, because it really is getting harder to find sources because of the loss of reporters, and that makes meeting current standards nearly impossible, but does that also mean the history should be deleted? That is for you all to decide. Thank you and all the best to you. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Kentucky Equality Federation and Jordan Palmer was a state level case and a critical one because all state judges dismissed challenges to the 2004 Constitutional Amendment. This is the only case that made it through trail. On a federal level, Obergefell v. Hodges recognized same-sex unions, which Jordan Palmer also filed a friend of the court brief on. However, Judge Wingate in Franklin Circuit Court had already ruled that "the rights and freedoms of individuals cannot be usurped, even in the largest majority as granted under the constitution of this Commonwealth." This case is the principal reason Republicans no longer wanted to use the state's seat of government for constitutional cases, and they no longer do. Please KNOW Kentucky LGBT history before nominating anything for deletion. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing WP:RS and WP:N are important for whether or how a subject is covered in the Wikipedia. As someone who does know a lot about Kentucky LGBT history (and many other subjects covered in the Wikipedia), I can clearly state that that knowledge isn't the controlling factor whether an article stays or not. At any rate, this AfD is a process, not a pre-ordained decision. As long as the process was started in good faith, and I believe it has been, Wikipedians are expected to make their case based on policy and guidelines whether the article stays. Having been a Wikipedian for nearly 20 years, I can assure you that casting aspersions on fellow participants does exactly nothing for any case. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 01:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it actually lowers the chances that the person making the statements will be taken as a valid AfD participant. Continuing to do so can lead to disciplinary sanctions if we aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Let's keep it friendly please, we all understand how important the subject of the article is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are going under at a record pace. This article has been unedited for over a decade and just because the cited newspapers are now out of business, the article is still valid. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper's article from the time of this event should be findable (like via the Wayback Machine), whether or not the newspaper remains in business. There is really no reason this AfD can't be responded to with WP:RS (to demonstrate WP:N) if they ever existed. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 01:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The Northern Kentucky newspaper(s), Northern Kentucky Journal, and the Boone County Journal cannot be found anyplace. However, some coverage from the Louisville Courier Journal and the Lexington Herald Leader have been added. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost certain that multiple libraries will have microfiche. —siroχo 08:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's very likely true if these newspapers were online at the time. However, if not, newspapers.com or libraries can be consulted. Overall, though, if you believe particular coverage happened in particular newspapers at particular times, please feel free in providing pointers to where editors can look. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments but please stay focus on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG.
  1. From the article, SIGCOV of the filing of this lawsuit [28]
  2. Not yet in article, SIGCOV of the start of the trial [29] (ProQuest metadata confirms this is the trial in question [30])
  3. From the article, SIGCOV of the opinion and outcome of this trial. [31]
—siroχo 08:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first and last ones look good. #2 is a different case. I'm still not convinced there is enough here to warrant a separate article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://kentuckyequality.org/news/kentucky-equality-federation-sues-the-commonwealth-of-kentucky-for-marriage-equality/, https://www.slideshare.net/kjoshuakoch/governor-beshear, https://www.facebook.com/KYEquality/photos/p.10153373501693563/10153373501693563/?type=1, and the Courier-Journal also referenced the case. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the "same sex marriage in Kentucky" article, there are some mentions of this legal case, but nothing substantial that I see. Should be adequately covered in the article about same sex marriages in the state. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, User:Commonwealth1333 is arguing Keep even though they didn't cast a vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never voted and did not receive the notice to vote. But, my final comments on this are as I told another user:
The C-J is part of USA Today now, and most of the staff has changed, or downsized because it is sadly dying industry, the same with the Herald-Leader. The Herald-Leader has also had lots of data loss from changes serves to AWS, etc. and a lot of information has been lost forever. The same is true with the Courier-Journal. I have an account with both, and articles are completely gone because of management and server changes. I honestly didn't know I still had an account with both newspapers because it is digital only, but even I do not recall the last time I read anything they published.
The Kentucky Post (the domain is now owned by a TV station) and the Kentucky Enquirer are gone (Northern KY) and even EthicsDaily.com which this news article originally referenced (https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html) are also gone and forwards to another site.
I was at a protest with Jordan Palmer in the early 2000's before that organization was founded; with Fletcher was governor. To make things worse, the Herald Leader used blogs for their top journalists (now gone except for Bill Estep), but the blogs did not survive the transfers (https://bsky.app/profile/BGPolitics this is what is goes to now). Even LEO Weekly does not have articles older than 2014. So, I am done with it. I think this is why the backed-up news on their own, so that it is preserved.
They can do whatever they want to do with the articles in question. My nieces and nephews, in their early 20's have no idea what Wikipedia is nor have they ever read a newspaper, sadly they get their news on TikTok and YouTube's "shorts". This is the end for me and Wikipedia, because it really is getting harder to find sources because of the loss of reporters, and that makes meeting current standards nearly impossible, but does that also mean the history should be deleted? Commonwealth1333 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note, if this article is not Kept, it looks like it will be turned into a Redirect which means the content would be preserved, just in the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 18 October 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! 01:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Along the Way (Colbie Caillat album)[edit]

Along the Way (Colbie Caillat album) (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 only contains announcements, and only two of those are definitely reliable (Euphoria is questionable and uDM may have a CoI for this artist). Beyond that, there are no reviews, and the only other coverage I've seen so far are interviews. This was draftified while it was upcoming, and (possibly copy-paste) moved without getting the draft approved for mainspace, and I doubt it would've been. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 18 October 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 00:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale Souls Inc.[edit]

Wholesale Souls Inc. (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:SIGCOV, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:NFO and WP: NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 00:53, 18 October 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 00:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Ironside[edit]

Boston Ironside (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:NTEAM. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:53, 18 October 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 Javor Gardev#Stage and Screenwriting. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icaria (film)[edit]

Icaria (film) (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 an unreleased film, not properly referenced as the subject of sufficient coverage to bypass the primary notability criteria for films. As always, films are not automatically notable forever the moment they enter the production pipeline -- there can be exceptions in some cases for films that generate a lot of coverage during the production process, such as Marvel or Star Wars films, but the vast majority of films aren't notable if they haven't been released, reviewed by film critics or seen by the general public.
But this apparently has never been released at all, and is referenced to just four footnotes of which one is a YouTube video and one is an unrecoverable deadlink -- leaving just two footnotes, which is nowhere near enough coverage to exempt a film from having to be released. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NFF Tehonk (talk) 03:54, 18 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five Minutes to Love[edit]

Five Minutes to Love (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, found a review at DVD Talk, under the name "The Rotten Apple" [36] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Also seems to meet WP:NFO#2. This has plenty of coverage in contemporary zines and related books, eg:
    1. There's a full review by Erich Mees in Ecco Magazine issue 19, page 18, 1993. Ecco has a masthead with editor and copy editor listed.
    2. Good size review in The Phantom of the Movies' Videoscope: The Ultimate Guide to the Latest, Greatest, and Weirdest Genre Videos, Joe Kane. 2000. p. 505.
    3. Short capsule review in Famous Monsters of Filmland, Issue 200, May 1993, p 109. Magazine has a full masthead.
—siroχo 01:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added an external link to the AFI (American Film Institute) page for the film's original title "The Rotten Apple". There's a great lot of information about this film at AFI: History, Details, Credits Synopsis, Genre, etc. On the one hand, this movie is a sort of testament to what a leap upward Rue McClanahan made to the Golden Girls. On the other hand, it's in league with a lot of low-budget films of that era. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 21:47, 18 October 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 00:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mula Sant[edit]

Mula Sant (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. Article has no sources and a WP:BEFORE search turned up 0 results about this topic. Clearly not notable, fails WP:BLPNOTE. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Cannot find any sources. Clyde [trout needed] 01:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage whatsoever. Deauthorized. (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://babamulasant.com/ seems like a relevant source. There might be more out there. - Indefensible (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That website is not an independent source. There are thousands of Hindu saints, deities etc, many bearing a multitude of names, and pretty much anyone can create a website & appoint themselves a spiritual leader. I don't think anyone has accorded me sainthood in Hinduism yet but given time ... - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:PRIMARY sources can still be used in some cases, and this proves that sources do exist contrary to what earlier comments state. - Indefensible (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could be complete fiction. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Fiction can be encyclopedic, there are certainly many such cases on Wikipedia. - Indefensible (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry but you are being specious now. The article claims to be about a saint but you're well aware of GNG & that a single, non-independent website published by ehat is at best a cult won't do. You're getting into WP:ARS territory, I think. Either find decent sources or stop already. - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          No I am not, I am only trying to be technically correct. Note that I did not vote to keep the article, I showed that a source does exist. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said: specious. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            That is rather insulting, maybe you should learn WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. - Indefensible (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't you consider it uncivil to waste the time of volunteers raising a "source" which was in the article and which even a cursory glance would tell you is an incomplete website project, complete with Latin placeholder text and non-functioning links? And then double-down with nonsense about fiction being sometimes notable when you know that the person is claimed to have actually lived? We all surely have better things to do than chase crap "sources" and arguments such as these. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              No? The earlier reviewers said there was no source found. I found and provided a source. That is factually what happened. Nothing more, this argument is not worth further discussion. - Indefensible (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • An unreliable website is not a source. Specious, again. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find nothing in English language sources nor when searching for the name in Hindi (सत् गुरू बाबा मूला सन्त जी), aside from the terrible website for the temple, a fair amount of which doesn't work due to unfulfilled links, Latin space-filler text etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 18 October 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 Night of the Living Dead. If an editor has strong feelings about it, you can change the Redirect to one that is more precise. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wayne[edit]

Keith Wayne (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:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. He’s only had one role as Tom in Night of the Living Dead. Unless he’s Peter Ostrum, the article fails NACTOR. Unless he’s Ian Michael Smith, Besedka Johnson or Jocelyne LaGarde, the article fails ANYBIO. I don’t object to a redirect to Night of the Living Dead. The Film Creator (talk) 00:19, 18 October 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_October_18&oldid=1181908030"