Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 15	August 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum Hall "Dr. Ángel Oscar Ulloa Gregory"[edit]

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

Non notable museum hall within the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, fails WP:GNG. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 15:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 15:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 15:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 15:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 15:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find independent reliable source coverage. I would have said re-direct, and I'm not against that, but this is not a viable search term and doesn't appear to have the traffic to warrant it. Star Mississippi 19:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle Mechanique[edit]

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

The level of coverage and significance doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY threshold. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my gut when I cleaned this up was that they're probably notable, but I'm still unable to find sourcing. I'll try again during this AfD as it wasn't on my priority list. Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist with the hope of increased participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I would like to see increased coverage of the emerging and disappearing networks of art groups, I don't see the coverage to sustain the present article. There's a lack of references regarding the initial project under this name, a lot of rather personal description of the middle period, again lacking evidence of notability. That leaves the final phase of the 1990s art space.: it did get passing mentions in event reviews and a retrospective brief mention in the 2003 piece about another event. I am not seeing evidence of attained notabiility in any of its phases of activity. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AllyD. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Martin (journalist)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability policy. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable journalist Nitesh003 (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On notability grounds; a search for sources turns up articles by him, but nothing about him. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes boil down to WP:ILIKEIT without providing any evidence. Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Foundation (Iran)[edit]

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

Advertising without reputational criteria and independent sources Persia ☘ 07:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a poorly written article about a community service organisation in Iran. The article needs a rewrite and/or copy-editing. The references indicate this is a substantial community relief organisation providing many services in Iran. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the case. The organization was set up by the government for media propaganda. The resources in question are all government resources that are operating in a directional rather than independent manner.--Persia ☘ 09:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Whiteguru; The wide range of activities and reputation of this foundation has the necessary criteria to have an independent page. Whiteguru also mentioned a true point that: The references indicate this is a substantial community relief organisation providing many services in Iran. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Service or Demagogue/Populism?--Persia ☘ 15:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see a reliable source supporting any form of notability. Agree with the OP's assessment that this looks like some kind of advertiser. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, nothing found that convince me it passes the GNG Mardetanha (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - horrendous article, bordering on propaganda, about an otherwise ordinary NGO. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pakistan–Syria relations. There seems to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan's position in the Syrian civil war[edit]

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

I don't see why this has to be on its own article and I don't see the notability with this article. The article basically states that the government of Pakistan supports Bashar al-Assad and wants a peaceful solution to the end of the civil war. The article is an outlier as it is the only article about a country's position in the war that hasn't sent troops to fight against the various factions involved. The article should in my view be merged into Pakistan–Syria relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: AfD is not the correct venue to request a merge. See: Wikipedia:AfD and mergers. Curbon7 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a merger request, it's still a deletion request. I think the page should be deleted and it's content be merged into the relations article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCleanerMan, See: WP:MERGETEXT; it's not a controversial move so you can just do it on your own and replace this page with a redirect. It's a provision stemming from Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Curbon7 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It is common for politicians or sovereign states to release their statements on the the international issues such as war, dispute etc. As per WP:NOTPAPER, this article is not suitable to be retained as a stand-alone article, and therefore it be merged into Pakistan–Syria relations. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:TNT. In 2021, any person splashing up an even very nice essay like this is not to be taken seriously. We are not a webhost for everyone's non-fiction writing. I would not oppose a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Comedy Institute[edit]

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

A non-notable comedy school with sources that mostly come from the school's website and its own YouTube channel. The Youtube links are obviously not independent. From what I could find about the school, all the articles that I've read that mention this school, only mention it in passing, and always included the founder of the school. There is nothing in third-party sources about what the school does outside of teaching comedy to students. There is no one article that's entirely about the school. This article fails GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough secondary sources to show that this is a notable institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. lorstaking 14:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - barely disguised spam. Getting onto TV talk shows and spouting PR are not reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added one quotation from a NYT article and have found additional secondary sources on newspaperscom from around the U.S., though so far the news coverage I've seen is more about Stephen Rosenfeld than about the Institute he founded. Still looking... Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I've listed 8 relevant articles from newspapers.com on the talk article's page, some with more than a passing mention of the Institute. I agree with the observations above, however, that this article is not ready for prime time, and needs to be de-spammed. The accreditation information, for example, is out of date, with Rosenfield listed only as a recent member of the board of NAST. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to draftify. The links you listed still won't help. And some of them I came across when I PRODDED the article and started the nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bradley (footballer)[edit]

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

Tagged for deletion almost immediately after creation in 2010 with rationale never played a fully professional game, and is only a youth player at st mirren, the first part of which still remains valid. I'm confused as to what the notability claim is in honesty.

According to Soccerbase (which has him down as Scottish), he does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only ever appeared in the NIFL Premiership, the SJFA West Region Premiership, Scottish League Two and Scottish League One, none of which are listed at WP:FPL.

I found one article in Daily Record, which is basically a transfer announcement with a lengthy quote from the player. On its own, it isn't enough for WP:GNG, especially considering that NFOOTBALL isn't met. I have searched in ProQuest and other search engines, using his name in conjunction with clubs that he has played for, and found little else. Trivial mentions in Glasgow Times and Cumnock Chronicle match reports do nothing to support a notability claim. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, amateur footballer. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he would not seem to have played in a fully professional league. A bit of coverage when he joined St Mirren, but not enough to meet any notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Park, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Non notable subdivision, fails GEOLAND and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CallMeCarson[edit]

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

Not an endorsement of deletion, but I'm opening this as a way to progress things forwards. It seems that most editors are agreed that CallMeCarson's main claim to notability is the allegations of sexual impropriety made against him in such articles as Daily Dot and Insider; however, they disagree on whether the allegations should be included or the article deleted. The reason for exclusion of the allegations would be WP:BLPCRIME. A previous AFD in January with no different sources, but not huge participation, concluded keep. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the talk page discussions: Theleekycauldron, DreamlessGlare, P37307, TrueQuantum, HTGS, Otr500, L33tm4n, PraiseVivec, Bangalamania, Corinal. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think we should all be in agreement that the article should be deleted per the guideline stated. There isn't much notability other than the allegations; thus, it should be deleted per WP:BLPCRIME. L33tm4n (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🤠 welp theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delete. It's unfortunate that his only notable thing about him can't even be mentioned on his page. DreamlessGlare (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed for reasons above I support delete Corinal (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. As I said on the talk page, the sources on an alleged crime/impropriety are not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. There are plenty of people out there who have articles in reliable sources about their misdemeanors. This does not make someone notable. The subject is not a notable criminal, nor is there adequate coverage of his presumed original fame (YouTube). The previous restoration was a mistake. — HTGS (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's going on my wall of stupid, to be sure— (it needs a better name) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I wouldn't blame yourself: unless it's a really high-profile topic, I find that I can never know whether something is notable until I'm midway through writing it, and by then (unless it's definitely non-notable) it's worth gathering all the sources, pressing "Publish changes" and letting others contest it if they want. I think it was worth presenting the best case for notability and if we find it non-notable then that stops others (hopefully) from trying to create it again (or gives a useful WP:REFUND if there's more coverage). — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, yeah—the article's notability was really on the fence for a while, and i think it was worth discussion. i appreciate the kind words, thanks :) i !vote to delete, per DreamlessGlare. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the coverage surrounding him has to do with the "forbidden knowledge" that won't go into the article anyway, so why have it in the first place? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Idea If Dexerto were considered a reliable source, then maybe there would be some grounds to keep Carson's article, seeing as how that outlet has significantly covered him. However, for whatever reason it's considered a "clickbait" website, so I guess nothing can be done about this article... unless there was a way to postpone the deletion process so that we can get consensus on whether or not Dexerto is truly a reliable source once more before going through the rest of this process, as it may contribute to the status of CallMeCarson's article. Just a little idea, though, but maybe later tonight I may ask on the VGS talk page if we can reconsider the source as reliable. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why you think dexerto is a reliable source, especially for establishing notability, to me it seems clear that its sensationalism and extremely niche. Corinal (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Corinal: Wasn't arguing in support of this source, I was just commenting on how most of the articles I saw about him were from that outlet alone. When I went to check the consensus on Dexerto, all I saw was that it was unreliable due to its "click-bait" and little analysis of the site itself, which is why I decided to post my initial comment first. But if Dexerto is still considered unreliable for establishing notability, then I'm leaning towards Delete. Only other sources I could find were a basic name-drop on a NYT article and a Game Rant article from yesterday, which even if the outlet were fully reliable, wouldn't have much use seeing as how it also touches upon the allegations we voted to exclude via WP:BLPCRIME. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources that is the bedrock of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant and flimsy sourcing. One source is literally just a dead link to his YouTube "About" page. Another is to a random site called poolhall, which is also a dead link.--Doomslug1 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tagging AviationFreak who voted in the previous discussion. As for me who also voted in the previous discussion, I'll remain neutral for now. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article should only exist if the allegations are included, as that is where notability comes from in this case. If including the allegations violates WP:HARM or WP:BLPCRIME, the allegations should not be included and the article should be deleted. AviationFreak💬 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am no expert in the subject area, but if this article is to exist, it should mention the sexting allegations. Weak keep, but with the sources and allegations included. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject, lacking the allegations (exclude per WP:BLPCRIME), is not notable. We are not a current news media outlet but an encyclopedia. Trying to add sensationalism as a reason for encyclopedia notability is insane. Just from what I read this is too flimsy to even attempt to cover. Even "if" there are charges, it would likely be federal concerning nude photographs of an under-aged person, and would just be a criminal act, not encyclopedia worthy. "If" nothing criminal results we (Wikipedia) would be spreading harmful content. In this case, possible inclusion fails all three points of the inclusion test. Without trying to figure out how to add the allegations, to add notability, there is none. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be relevant but article must be improved. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. The previous AfD was mostly Keep votes, some of which put forward that WP:GNG should be applied differently to internet personalities who don't attract traditionally sufficient coverage. I don't think I agree with that, and regardless of if I do or not, such a concept is not currently supportable with any policy we have. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vika Tsiganova[edit]

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. nearlyevil 665 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has many awards, dozens of disk. If you check the other languages articles you can see that she's very famous not only in Russia. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's famous. In her heydays her songs were in rotation everywhere. GorgonaJS (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable https://akulich.org/vika-tsiganova-ya-vernus/ https://moskvichmag.ru/lyudi/eto-moj-gorod-pevitsa-vika-tsyganova/ https://teleprogramma.pro/stars/1924682-esli-chto-to-ne-tak-vy-prostite-menya-57-letnyaya-cyganova-v-bikini-pokazala-u3419/ Newspapers even refer to her by surname alone. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, these sources are tabloid-level articles (and interviews) in publications of dubious repute. In fact, the first reference is a blog. If mentions in similar publications were enough to be considered a pass of notability then every other self-described pop star to exist in the former Soviet space would qualify for an article on Wikipedia. nearlyevil 665 13:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is a singer. Her songs were placed in rotation nationally by a major radio network (Shanson radio). So she is qualify for an article on Wikipedia. See WP:NSINGER. Simple. GorgonaJS (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, that deletion nomination is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE, it doesn't consist of an actual position. In the following, I give most of the citations I have, the rest I pulled from the WP article in Russian because I simply cannot track down Russian-language RS. I also don't know how to check Russian national charts so I've just not tried with that. WP:NSINGER criteria 1: She has been in a few reasonably reputable sources written in English - The Moscow Times [1], Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty [2], TASS [3]. Also some from pop culture sources - less reliable, but volume of articles is still relevant. Criteria 6: She was in the Chamber Jewish Musical Theatre which is notable in its own right due to its place in Russian Jewish history, as well as having had notable members (e.g. Yuri Sherling and Yakov Yavno, who were both recognised as People's Artist of the RSFSR). Criteria 8: she had songs in Pesnya goda in 1997, 1998, 1999 [4] (the equivalent of 2 award nominations). The source isn't great but I struggled to find any list of the nominees and winners from every year. Criteria 11: As described by Gorgona JS, she was on rotation with Shanson radio. Non-singer notability: She's received a couple of national award/medal/title (not sure what to call it - like Order of Australia, those kind of things). She was a candidate in a political election for United Russia (the ruling party) [5]. She had a clothing collection in a significant fashion week. Summary: she meets multiple criteria of notability, even with me having the constraints of not knowing Russian. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The assertion that "Charting at all is proof of notability" is not backed up with a link to a guideline that says so. Sandstein 18:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XUM[edit]

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

In my common sense (mean WP:IAR), I don't thinks this group is worth enough to be noticed. Xum disband for only app. one years. And all of the three members is just former member of Neonpunch. So, shall we merge with Neonpunch, or delete it. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 08:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that the trio didn't last a year before disbanding, and their only chart entry wasn't particularly high (not even in the top 50) its unlikely that this article would ever grow beyond a stub. Alex (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 12:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 12:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charting at all is proof of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wasted Youth (American band). ✗plicit 00:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Daze[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant coverage or reviews of this album in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 22:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wasted Youth. I could only find a Rock Hard review of, I'm guessing, a reissue. Sites and books like MetalSucks (listed as reliable) and The Encyclopedia of Punk and Culture call the band "legendary" and "inspir[ing]" without really going into detail, certainly not about the album. LA and San Diego newspaper mentions from the period are brief, and about the band. Just lost HathiTrust access, so not sure about American Hardcore or Martin Popoff, etc. There are likely things about this 1988 thrash album that have not been digitized or made available through databases. Because the members went on to bigger (maybe not better) things, it is a valid search term. Caro7200 (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it doesn't look like there's enough for this to be its own page, so redirect it is. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Dhattarwal[edit]

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

Non notable YouTuber who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail. A before search links me to a plethora of unreliable user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per issues raised. Otterslort (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:BLP, and WP:TNT. Even with tens of thousands of hits or millions of followers, we have deleted some YouTubers, although we're not consistent. The "Early life" section discusses something about his "primitive age". I don't get it. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Bapinghosh (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Red-baiting selectively. Editors reached consensus that the topics are the same, or at least best covered in the same place. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist (insult)[edit]

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

So I get the point with this article, but I doubt that we can separate the epithet 'socialist' from any normal definition of 'socialist'? A wide variety of political terms can be construed as insults depending on context, 'socialist' is by no means an exception. 'Fascist', on the other hand, is a very peculiar case as the definition in common parlance today has very little to do with the original, self-identified fascist movement. Soman (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Any word can be an insult when you really think about it. KidAd • SPEAK 23:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the present article to my view suffers from SYNTH, but there is RS on the notion of the term "socialist" as an insult. However, from what I can see, almost all the sourcing on that topic locates socialist within the wider framework of attacks on the left, ie red-baiting. FWIW, I find the title misleading, insult is personal and implies relations between individuals, but the label of "socialist" had (can have) profound consequences far beyond being an insult (eg loss of employment, imprisonment, death) and historically has frequently been backed with institutional power (eg state agency surveillance) So, rather than delete, I'd lean more towards a redirect to red-baiting. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red-baiting: I am in 100% agreeance with Goldsztajn. A redirect to red-baiting is the most appropriate action here; these two pages are exactly the same concept. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Red-baiting. From looking over the (huge amount of) sources looks like a minor case of WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:REFBOMBING. Most political designations can be used as an insult by a differing factor or someone wanting to miscategorise the other's views. Agree with the above comment that this does not have the same notability as Fascist (insult). The article is trying to cover 'communist' and 'marxist' (in some sources) as an insult so a merge with red-baiting makes sense. I don't really support redirecting as no articles link to this page and it is highly unlikely someone would search for this exact term. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Red-baiting: Per reasons provided by others, which seem persuasive to me. As others have pointed out, you could add "(insult)" to pretty much any word to generate an article, which seems problematic. To the extent there is unique content, it should be merged to Red-baiting. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The title needs work but the sources indicate that there's a substantial topic here. The scope of the article includes other similar words like "communist" and this is not just a US "red scare" thing – I noticed in recent news coverage that the Taliban execute communists out of hand. This is a new article and applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:CENSOR, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You could have twenty pages just for ideology names hurled around as insults. I hear Liberal thrown around more as an insult than socialist, but where's the page on that? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (or merge with Red Baiting) the SYNTH and NPOV concerns aside, there are very few non-opinion RS that describe this topic in-depth. It's mostly just a passing mention, see for example Fortune, CBS News etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, I appreciate the response and fair criticism. "'Fascist', on the other hand, is a very peculiar case as the definition in common parlance today has very little to do with the original, self-identified fascist movement." I thought that 'socialism', or 'communist', has become the same, as it is has been used to describe people who have nothing to do with either, or where it is used to mean 20th-century Communist regimes when many socialists and communists were the first to criticized them back in 1917 and do not want to recreate command economies or force them through authoritarianism; of course, it has overlap with 'red-baiting', and it has been used to criticize, or as an insult for, the whole Left. I could have used 'buzzword', 'epithet', or 'scare word', but for consistency I used the same title of Fascist (insult) because that was its example on the other hand of the spectrum, and my intent was focusing on the pejorative (i.e. they are used to mean either 20th-century Communist regimes or any expansion of the government) more than red-baiting. I disagree that "you could add '(insult)' to pretty much any word to generate an article, which seems problematic" because, while true to an extent, it is only notable for the Left and fascism.

P.S. Either way, I think they would be an improvement for the Red-baiting article, and they could be used as redirects; a Definition of socialism article is needed, so we could also cover the use as an insult, pejorative, etc. "From looking over the (huge amount of) sources looks like a minor case of WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:REFBOMBING." I thought synthesis does not warrant deletion, otherwise Mass killings under communist regimes would have been done with a long time ago. Davide King (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selectively merge to the Red-baiting article. The point of the insult is to bait people and heap anger upon them. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hershey Mill, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

The coordinates for this one are off; older topos show Hershey Mill next to what appears to be a mill pond along Greenhill Road northeast of West Chester. Pre-1950s newspaper searches mostly returned another Hershey Mill in Lancaster County. The area is now a large retirement community and golf course called Hershey's Mill. No evidence that any of this meets GEOLAND or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Having fixed the coords, which were incorrectly copied from GNIS, it's obvious that this was originally a literal mill, but there are no signs of a community per se until the retirement community appears. Mangoe (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines per nom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and my standrads for such clubs. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Los Koyas[edit]

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

I feel like this should be notable, but couldn't find the evidence that it is, in the 3 language WP articles it has or Google. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years and has a range of other concerns, which may mask a clear assessment of its notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 07:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge[edit]

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

Article for a department in a school of medicine at the University of Cambridge. Nothing in the article to make it notable, has had notability template on it since 2013. rsjaffe talk 21:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 21:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, that is notable, this is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye Marie Talise[edit]

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

No notability is established. The only references are IMDb which is not a valid reference to support notability and the other reference just redirects to a YouTube page. Looking at this actresses IMDb, she mostly had unnotable roles, primarily either uncredited roles or roles such as "Stripper", "Hooker" or "Hot Girl in Boxers" which are indications of extremely minor roles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article claims (with no source cited) that the subject died in 2011, yet her IMDb page gives no indication that she may be deceased, and lists roles for her as recent as 2015. (I realize that a person might die having previously filmed roles not released until later -- but we don't have any evidence that she is deceased.) In any event, though, I don't see evidence of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:NACTOR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well of course then there is the casting of Peter Cushing is 'Rogue One (released 2016) although Cushing died in 1994, but that actually involves a digital likeness imposed over another actor. However that is a very rare course of action, and some people really have issues with how that was done and do not like it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither IMDb nor Youtube is a reliable source. We absolutely need reliable sources to show notability. Also a bunch of bit parts does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and failing our standards. An online search found no good sources. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort Farms, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

As the name suggests, this was a dairy farm in the 1920s but is now a housing development. Neither meets GNG or GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my standards. I cant even find out how many people live there. Only sources online are ads and Mapquest-type sites. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramina Torabi[edit]

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

A version of this article was sent to draft at Draft:Ramina Torabi as it was a BLP with 20 fake references, all of which led to wiki websites that never existed. The creator has trimmed this down to 12 references, all of which are still fake wiki websites that never existed. The external links are both genuine but neither establish WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL, I am concerned about Lilit as they state their intention is to promote the artists that they feature.

I have searched "رامینا ترابی" as part of a WP:BEFORE but can't find any WP:RS showing clear significant coverage. A lot of the articles are either just passing mentions or simply regurgitating her Instagram pictures or user-generated content.

This may well be eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion soon as an active CU request has been opened at SPI, which is heavily backlogged. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also failed to find any working citations. (I was doing basic research to fix minor errors in what is now the draft, having assumed that the article was wanted.) Certes (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. No indication of notability. References fail to establish notability of the subject. DMySon (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment : I have created all the sources. Therefore, I request that the page be created and the tag be removed. I will also add 20 new sources.E B R A M (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis - wow, that's an hour of my life that I wish I could claim back... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Spiderone's table. Furius (talk)

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://lilit.ir/INDEX/	?	?	She isn't mentioned even once	✘ No
http://www.nazweb.ir/307298-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%85.html		I can't see any author named or any reputation for fact checking	This appears to be a hyper-promotional user-generated profile page which is significantly identical to a lot of the others that follow	✘ No
https://photokade.com/%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C/		No author or journalist. No indication from website that source is reliable. Interesting that she is declared as single here but other sources say she is married, which just indicates that this is a mess.	Another user-generated bio with same copied and pasted content	✘ No
https://business-search.info/ramina-torabi/	A quick perusal of this website shows that it's 100% user-generated spam			✘ No
https://lilit.ir/52198/	This website's aim is to promote the artists that feature in it so I presume there is some amount of COI here			✘ No
https://enfejar.vip/admins/ramina-torabi/	Again we have to disregard this as it's yet another clone bio 'article' hosted on a betting site. Why are these all on betting sites?!			✘ No
https://pokerbama.info/other/ramina-torabi/	See #6. Honestly, this is identical!			✘ No
https://www.moevir.com/model/			Site doesn't exist	✘ No
https://niksho.com/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%B3.html		~ This website seems to have some regulated content but this particular post looks to be a copy-paste of some of the user-generated/sponsored stuff	Literally just reposting her Instagram photos	✘ No
https://saten.ir/167859/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D9%88-%DA%86%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D8%9F-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3-%D8%A7/ramina-torabi/	?	Website appears to be full of clickbait and spam. There is some authored content but not much.	No coverage	✘ No
https://www.shomanews.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%87%D9%86%DA%AF-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%B1-10/908602-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%84%D9%88-%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%87	?	Site poses as a news site but, upon clicking several articles, it's just a bunch of database scraping bio pages. I couldn't find anything that looked like it was produced by an actual journalist and not a database scraping bot.	Duplicates content from the other sources	✘ No
https://namagard.com/ramina-torabi-biography/			Not an article. Just duplication of the exact same content as sources above.	✘ No
https://mejene.com/model/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C/	?	? This is a Persian fashion mag. I can't see any indication of how much fact checking is involved but there is actually an author declared here, which is at least something.	~ Some coverage. Author appears to write about other things so can believe that this wasn't just posted by Torabi's agent/marketing team	? Unknown
https://farsiha.ir/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7/		I couldn't find any indication of any professional journalism anywhere on this site, which is full of clickbait and user-generated copypaste bios	Routine coverage	✘ No
https://behtarin.bio/ramina-torabi/		Blog	Copied and pasted bio posted by 'user0037'	✘ No
https://iranmodeling.net/ramina-torabi/	?	? Appears to be reputable somewhat	Barely any	✘ No
http://esfahanemrooz.ir/69637-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%A8%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C.html	?		Absolutely nothing to add on previous spam bios	✘ No
http://timekhosh.com/2019/05/04/%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%88/		Blog website which is full of user-generated spam bios of 'celebrities'		✘ No
http://www.mevia.ir/ch/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7_%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C_%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA	?	?	? I haven't downloaded the video as I don't trust the website and don't think it's safe.	? Unknown
https://rayanworld.com/20200609102725001/Ramina-Torabi-the-model-migrated-to-Turkey?subarticle=10			A collection of photos. The captions are all generic and don't discuss Torabi.	✘ 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}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spiderone's extensive list as there's no evidence of GNG and while COI editing isn't prohibited, this comment from the creator that they "created the sources" and want help registering the page leads me to believe we're just here for their promotional purposes. Star Mississippi 13:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment However, I got all the sources right. Therefore, in my opinion, according to the comments on the page, it should be revived. And remove the label. thanks all.E B R A M (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- if the discussion ends in keeping this article, the tag will be removed. Not before. Please disclose any necessary conflicts of interest Star Mississippi 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*keep .I fixed all the sources that had problems.E B R A M (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source assessment table by Spiderone; the recent additions of statements describing a source as a news outlet, e.g. [6], [7], [8], does not improve compliance with the WP:RS guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Spiderone's table. Spam article, pretty clear cut. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy delete Mardetanha (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Potentially speedy delete under G5 but this has been open for a while so can be just a deletion.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 295 and District of Columbia Route 295[edit]

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

I don't think the point of a dab page is two have two items and then include both items listed in the title, and I highly doubt anybody is going to search on Wikipedia "Interstate xxx and State Route xxx". If anyone needs any further information on the other road, they can easily access it from one of the articles via wikilinks. Here are the other related articles I am including in this nomination:

WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all—none of those are needed nor likely search targets. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the spirit of WP:XY, these are distinct routes that would not be searched for like this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these, though I would support creation of disambiguation pages for the numbers (390, 295, etc) that contain all routes designated with that number as well as anything else that happens to use it (such as British Rail Class 390). NemesisAT (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Nitesh003 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We already have disambiguation pages that cover a much broader range of articles, e.g. List of highways numbered 295. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Sampson[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY as a player, and also fails to meet WP:GNG as a person. I found only one obituary on Legacy.com for Sampson from 2011, which was reprinted on several news sites. This is not enough to pass for general notability. Routine mentions box scores found on newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com are not enough to pass GNG. Signing a contract with an NHL team and playing only minor league hockey does not satisfy NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass NHOCKEY or GNG. First, the cited work "Total Hockey" does not have an entry for him at all, that entry appears to be fiction. If, as the article claims, he was signed as a minor league player, that book would not have him in their records unless he actually played. Additionally, it would also appear to be fiction that he played his junior hockey with the Brandon Wheat Kings as they did not exist when he would have been junior age. The obit claims that he played in the NHL, which unfortunately no database confirms.18abruce (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Internet Hockey Database has him only playing in the Saskatchewan Senior Hockey League, which would not meet NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tigam Alif Farisma[edit]

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

Consensus is now clear that passing WP:GNG is far, far more important than playing as little as 26 mins of professional football over 7 years ago and not playing since. Indonesian search came back with nothing of note. Searching across other search engines, the only thing I can find is an image caption in Tribun News and some database sites like Tribuna and Footballdatabase.eu, which never confer notability on their own. Honestly, that was all I could find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons noted by GiantSnowman. Common sense would say that a brief runout several years ago and no evidence of anything since, nor any remote claim to being notable, suggests that WP:GNG is not met. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to discount most of the "keep" opinions because they consist mostly of attacks on the nominator or the nomination, rather than of attempts to address the nominator's reason for the nomination, which is WP:IINFO. Per WP:AGF and WP:NPA, such comments are prohibited and cannot be therefore taken into account when assessing consensus. This includes the "keep" opinion by Andrew Davidson, as well as the opinions that refer to that opinion, and by Philoserf and 7&6=thirteen. While there are other "keep" opinions that do make an argument for why this list is not indiscriminate, they by and large fail to address the WP:LISTN arguments also advanced by the "delete" side. Based on this assessment of the merits of the opinions voiced here, I conclude that we have rough consensus for deleting this article. Sandstein 07:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional counties[edit]

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

Not to be confused with List of fictional countries, this is a list that is so minor as to be indiscriminate. The category has extremely few actual articles. Should be deleted as an example of overlistification. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD as no valid reasons to delete are provided. If the list is short, then this is not a problem – if it were long, the nominator would be complaining about that too. The complaints that it is minor and overlistification are not policy-based and so are just forms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT contrary to WP:NPOV. This dislike seems to be an Anglo-American bias as counties are more significant in national culture in the UK, as compared with the US. Borsetshire and Thomas Hardy's Wessex are quite notable in the UK and the list is a reasonable index of such per WP:LISTPURPS and WP:CLN. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If counties are so important in British fiction, there ought to be far more standalone articles of them. It doesn't seem like they are any more important than they are in fiction from the US, as most of the links from the list go to works of media rather than the county itself. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The list has had its ups and downs since it was created back in 2003 and I had little difficulty adding a significant entry just now. So, what is the magic number of entries that is required and where is the justification for it? Bear in mind that we have featured lists with fewer entries such as List of castles in Greater Manchester which just has 9, for example. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson - I think the key difference is that the castles of Greater Manchester are clearly 'a thing' and have been grouped together by reliable sources per WP:NLIST (see: [9], [10], [11]). Nobody seems to be able to produce similar sources for this list other than sources speaking about individual fictional counties. Without this, it is WP:ORIGINAL. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, castles in Greater Manchester are not a thing. I grew up in the area and so am quite familiar with places like Dunham Massey. AFAIC, that's in Cheshire – the historic county which is more appropriate for medieval matters. Greater Manchester is a modern invention (1974) and so its use in this context is an anachronism. You see, counties in Britain are ancient institutions with deep roots and their fictional equivalents are a thing too. If you are not British and have never listened to an episode of The Archers, you are unlikely to fully appreciate this topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well whatever your opinions are they are irrelevant unless supported by sources or guidelines. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have cited at least four policies and guidelines. I've added a good source to the article and I have plans to do more now that Wikimania has finished. My !vote stands and is only going to get stronger. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The sources indicate the notability of the topic. But I would suggest removing unsourced entries and one-shot entities. The main setting of a series is probably notable, but we seem to list counties that appeared in a single episode of a long-running series. I doubt there are many sources on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My opinion hasn't really changed since the last time, except the list has been somewhat pruned since then. It still seems to be an indiscriminate collection of trivia, but perhaps I'm not seeing the sources people above are talking about. Could someone provide the best sources which provide some in depth coverage of "fictional counties" as a group (not about specific fictional counties, that is)? Surely we can also find sources which say that [X] is the [township, commonwealth, subdivision, country, continent, state, province, company town, neighborhood, borough, street, square, region, etc.] of [work of fiction] sufficient for all of those lists. The question is whether there's significant coverage as a group. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to even properly define what a county is in this context, badly design indiscriminate list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any of the previous AfD discussions have enough reasoning on there own. Still, Andrew Davidson is correct. I sense a bias. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question anyone have a reason for keeping that isn't just an attack on the nominator? Links to sources which treat this subject as a group, perhaps? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page has existed since 2003 without significant problems, providing information and navigational assistance to thousands of readers. It's the handful of nay-sayers that need to find a good reason to change the status quo – something better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH and WP:KEEPLISTING. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An indirect answer to the question, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:ARTICLEAGE for why that argument holds no water at all. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in the article seem to fail to meet WP:LISTN. One of the sources in the lead doesn't even seem to mention county within its text. Otherwise, it's just an indiscriminate list that, if reduced to blue links, really doesn't even need to exist. TTN (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The third AFD was in March 2020. Anything linking to its own article or an article with sufficient coverage of it, or that has a reference saying its a notable setting, belongs on the list. Dream Focus 01:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely fails WP:LISTN. I've done a brief WP:BEFORE and cannot find any sources discussing this subject as a whole (this alone should be enough to convince editors to delete). The article as it stands is the result of WP:SYNTH/WP:ORIGINAL. Just to go through some of the sources in the lede:

This source never once mentions counties (let alone fictional ones), is an article about one specific fictional map and never makes any general claims about fictional maps of counties.
This entire book on fictional worlds only mentions counties once in a list (when not in a proper noun).
The Kinberger source also never speaks about counties but rather talks about mapping "informal geographies" (not necessarily even 'fictional' geographies).
This source is hardly reliable and again never speaks about counties specifically.
All other sources just speak of fictional counties in the work of Faulkner - not as a larger idea.

Sources in the rest of the article only speak about the specific fictional county in the list. I think this exposes the WP:REFBOMBING that has justified the article's existence so far. Read the sources fellow editors! Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Vladimir. Between the sources that don't mention the subject at all (!), the passing mentions, and the unreliable sources I think it's pretty clear that this doesn't pass WP:LISTN. Reyk _YO! 14:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I would also urge the closing administrator to take note of the unjustified accusations of nationalist bias on the part of the nominator made by several of the participants here. I regard these comments to be personal attacks, and I strongly urge the closer not to overlook this behaviour just because the comments are prefaced by the word "keep". Reyk _YO! 14:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a sufficient list article that identifies numerous fictional counties. I supported merging in the previous nomination, and since it was kept, I cleaned up the list from this to this, providing encyclopedic context for each fictional county wherever it exists. This is essentially a subset of lists of fictional locations, spun off by the type of location, like the other subsets are. We can have a range of subsets by territory, and we do, from city to state to country to world, and I don't see it to be detrimental to have a county-based list as part of that spectrum, as long as the entries have noteworthiness independent of the primary source. That's what I added after the last AfD, and I find encyclopedic value in identifying and briefly discussing the relevance of each fictional county, especially what they are based on. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons listed in the last three nominations. Another vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD as no valid reasons to delete are provided. WP:Not paper WP:Preserve 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no unifying coverage or purpose to listing such disparate fictional places together, dissimilar in media and genre, merely because they are within an administrative hierarchy sharing a name in these two countries. While writers may choose to avoid locating their works in a real place, even if inspired by one, to allow for more creative flexibility, there's not anything discussing the subject as whole indicating the relationship between listed items or a navigational connection between one place to another relative to other types of fictional places. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see a lot of ‘keep’ votes are relying on WP:LASTTIME (even though last time reached no consensus). Would be interested to see some engagement on the topic and relevant sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this nomination being made after three unsuccessful AfDs aside, I don't see how this fails WP:NLIST. I see twenty-two sources, which look legitimate to me -- I don't see anything wrong with them, and nobody else has tried to challenge their reliability. The article could definitely stand to be cleaned up -- this should be done -- but I don't see this as an inherently absurd or disjunct subject for a list. jp×g 02:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @JPxG: the reliability of the sources isn't the issue; what the sources are doing is the issue. They verify information, but they don't show notability. We can find 22 sources of things that verify each of 22 fictional purple things or fictional playgrounds or fictional people named Ralph. That doesn't mean that the subject itself is notable (the subject being "fictional people named Ralph" or "fictional counties"). The way we evaluate that is by finding sources which provide significant coverage of the subject -- that is, of fictional counties as a group. Otherwise we can cobble together fandom lists about nearly any subject if each individual item is verifiable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are at least four counties of well-established note which make the list viable: Barsetshire, Wessex, Yoknapatawpha, and (last and least) Hazzard. All else is a matter of cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NLIST. The few notable entries aren't discussed as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't want makes something WP:NLIST. The grouping itself has to be notable via sources not the individual items making up the list. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presume what Clarityfiend is saying is that it's not an encyclopedic list; it's a purely navigational list. I would disagree that four (or even a bit more) items (plus perpetual additions of trivia) makes for a useful navigational aid. Categories and lists can coexist, but we also don't need another list to maintain for every category. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Andrew. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources on the article verify that the fictional counties listed exist, but don't establish that the concept of 'fictional counties' as a group is notable, and no sources have been raised in this discussion that demonstrate this. Some of the sources currently on the article don't cover the subject in much detail, and I agree with Vladimir.copic's analysis. Waxworker (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Zevlaris[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer having only played in the 2nd and 3rd tiers of Cyprus. Has played for Cyprus but only U17, which doesn't confer notability either. Searching "Σταύρος Ζεβλάρης" gets us a passing mention in Kerkida (translated) and a one-sentence injury announcement in Cyprus Times (translated). I also did a DDG search which returned nothing better than a squad list in Kathimerini, none of this shows significant coverage so Zevlaris likely fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinos Zarnas[edit]

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

Nothing on Football Database, World Football, FlashScore, SofaScore, Soccerway or Cyprus FA gives any indication of notability as U21 caps for Cyprus are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL. Even the unreliable Transfermarkt has nothing for him.

Greek language searches through DDG and Google turn up nothing of note. There appears to be an assistant referee of the same name who also doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article. I can't see any indication of a WP:GNG pass from any of the above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --Assyrtiko (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harry Nilsson#1980–1992: Winding down. ✗plicit 00:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With a Bullet[edit]

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

The song itself is not particularly notable as the release hasn't received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Nilsson's activism is noted at Harry Nilsson#1980–1992: Winding down, so a redirect there may be appropriate. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Nilsson#1980–1992: Winding down. The nominator and I have both done some work on this article because the primary editor was unfamiliar with the templates and other matters. I was indifferent to notability at the time, but upon further reflection I don't think the song and its story have made it into the significant and reliable media as required for a stand-alone WP article. While the song was Nilsson's statement on the murder of his longtime friend John Lennon, and it is fairly legendary in the fan community, the rest of world (especially reliable music journalists) just hasn't really noticed. The episode can be mentioned briefly at Nilsson's article, and already is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I can firmly agree that there are not many articles that support this release, I do believe that it is historically significant in some aspects, which I think is worth mentioning when considering deletion. I also have made attempts to include this in the Harry Nilsson article, which have been deleted by other users. In the event that this article remains, I will do my best to further include relevant sources and information regarding it. ---Agent (TALK| 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Nilsson#1980–1992: Winding down. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Abbas Kiarostami. RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute to the Teachers[edit]

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

The film's name is only seen when Kiarostami's films are listed in English and Italian academic sources. I also tried to search Persian sources with the translation tool since I don't know the language, but nothing came up. There might be more sources in Persian language than I found with translation tool, however the film does not look notable in its current state. — Pamphylian ● 💬 16:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Pamphylian ● 💬 16:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Pamphylian ● 💬 16:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abbas Kiarostami as an alternative to deletion. I can’t find anything online either but I don’t think an AfD was really necessary for this one. Mccapra (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abbas Kiarostami - no realistic chance of meeting WP:NFILM but plausible search term Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021-22 Millbrook A.F.C. Season[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:NSEASONS; this club plays at the ninth level of English football. Number 5 7 16:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete - clearly not notable enough for inclusion per NSEASONS. Football League clubs is the norm.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a whole five tiers below the level that usually warrants stand-alone season articles. If someone can present clear evidence that Millbrook's seasons get enough coverage from reliable, independent sources to give substance to an article like this then I might well change my mind. WP:GNG is a requirement for all articles, including season ones. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, because they're in the 9th division. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, some examples of the coverage for Millbrook's games this season.

https://www.southwestsportsnews.com/football/match-reports/4812-kjm-sport-match-report-millbrook-4-bridport-0
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/sport/19515074.millbrook-4-0-bridport-bees-still-waiting-first-points/
https://kernowfootball.substack.com/p/white-tigers-tamed-on-opening-day
https://saltashunited.co.uk/gallery.aspx?id=16711 -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddie79 (talk • contribs)
- This is the kind of coverage most clubs at this level get. While it may contribute to the club's notability, I do not believe it makes a season article notable, particularly given how far below the WP:NSEASONS requirement this falls. Frankly, it would be absurd to have season articles for clubs at this level. Number 5 7 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if by any chance the article is kept, what is currently there will need an almost total re-write. Bits like "Results were extremely positive, with goals flowing as they scored five against both Saltash and Liskeard", "After 40 minutes of the game, there was cause for optimism as Mackenzie Brown's side looked more than capable of playing at level, carving out a handful of decent chances" and "A strong performance from Sam Morcom on the left and an impressive contribution from Laurence Murray in midfield allowed the home side to run out comfortable winners" would be appropriate for a fansite but are not at all suitable for an encyclopedia..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the feedback, I'm more than happy to rewrite the match summaries to be more appropriate. If there are any other suggestions that would make the articles more suitable then please let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddie79 (talk • contribs)

Hi All - apologies for sounding dumb, I'm very new to the article-writing process (as you're most likely aware!) - how will I know whether this article is going to be deleted, and can you confirm what I could possibly do to avoid it being deleted before the 7 day window has expired? ThanksSpuddie79 (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spuddie79: The discussion will closed after seven days, at which point a decision will be made on deletion. Without wanting to be harsh, basically there is nothing you can do – this article is well below our notability threshold – the vast majority of National League club season articles have been deleted due to not being considered notable, so there is no way that a season article for a club playing four divisions lower will be considered notable. I would suggest putting your effort into improving 2021–22 Western Football League. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Nitesh003 (TALK) 00:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I believe User:Walter Görlitz has confused my relist with User:Netherzone's comment about sources, but in any case it appears the participants in the discussion do not believe the sources found contain the level of coverage that would prove notability. RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Moraine[edit]

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

His claim to notability seems to rest on one song he wrote - the song doesn't have an article and I couldn't establish that it is notable, or him. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some hits on Google Books[12], [13], [14] but I'm not sure that is enough to pass notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete In addition to the sources found by RL0919, there is this short bio: https://www.thehistoricalsociety.org/h/christmas-island.html although without an author, I'm not sure that it can be called reliable, and there is a DB with one other song co-written with Bob Hope: https://secondhandsongs.com/artist/69109. No bio at AllMusic but his credits https://www.allmusic.com/artist/lyle-moraine-mn0000209284/credits for the notable song alone are greater than the works of "notable" artists with articles on the project. At the very least, leave a redirect and include any reliably sourced details at a newly created article for the song (Christmas Island (song)) rather than the details at Christmas Island (disambiguation). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking notability and significant coverage. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per WP:TNT, or userfy. I did a deep dive and found some possible sources, but it needs too much work. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a WP:DICDEF. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irish twins[edit]

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

Just a dictionary definition. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY rsjaffe talk 15:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 15:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 15:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This already has an entry at wiktionary (wikt:Irish twin), in case anybody was pondering whether to transwikify. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition. I also think the article misplaces the etymology of the term, it is not 19th but 20th century in origin. Large families did not become a distinction between Catholics and mainline protestants until into the 20th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. It's a derogatory term that hasn't been used commonly since 1972, and there's a dictionary definition already in the system. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler (software)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. There are some mentions, but not the level of significance or coverage needed. It has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Leynse[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT, and although there are some sources, not enough for WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition, although this person is a working theatre professional, the article does not indicate that he has done anything of encyclopedic interest. Merge to Primary Stages, which article does not even list him as artistic director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Peters (radio personality)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. No incoming wikilinks and no indication of a good merge/redirect target. Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - hopefully we can now get this resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the references at nl:Dave_Peters Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG can never be met with only one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly meets multiple notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marsel van Oosten[edit]

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

This is obviously written fo0r promotional reasons, and is a blp with no proper references. Aside from that, I couldn't find the sources to confirm he meets WP:N, or see a suitable WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Won important international awards, as covered for example by CNN and National Geographic. Unclear to me why the sources would be hard to find. The sources are usually in English. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1, WP:NCREATIVE #4d and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot see how WP:BEFORE was done here. Overall winner, Travel Photographer of the Year, 2015; and Grand title winner, Wildlife Photographer of the Year, 2018. I'm not aware of the former award, but the latter is significant. The latter win has coverage in a very many major media outlets. I have now added all of this to the article. Passes WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Passes WP:ANYBIO: "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award". Unless I misunderstand "critical", then passes WP:ARTIST "4. The person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention". -Lopifalko (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject has also had a book of his work published with a major publisher that appears to have been reviewed in The Times (I cannot read more than the top of the article). -Lopifalko (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Brodie[edit]

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

Article is on an amateur tennis player. The Australian Open did not start admitting professionals until 1969, long after Lionel Brodie participated. As such, fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NTENNIS is not limited to professional tennis players, and to do so would make a mockery of the significant coverage many amateur players received in the years before the open era. Iffy★Chat -- 10:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I can see, Brodie does not meet one of the criteria of WP:NTENNIS, so what are you basing your keep vote on? There's also no evidence of significant coverage of this individual to meet WP:SIGCOV. Historically we do not keep articles on subjects who play in opens when they are non-professional. Criteria 3 specifies that the open must be professional. See for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Bennett (tennis), in which several members of WP:WikiProject Tennis pointed to the fact that participating in amateur opens is not inherently notable. This is a very similar case. Also Iffy, please remember to sign your above comment. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the signature, apologies. The key difference between players like Robert Bennett and Lionel Brodie is that Brodie participated in multiple Grand Slams, reaching the quarter finals and semi-final stages, while gthe result of the Bennett AFD appears to be on the basis that he played in only 1 match and lost it. Iffy★Chat -- 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The prior AFD was based around the fact that participation in an open prior to it going professional is not notable with special attention given to the professional requirement of criteria 3. No discussion was based around the actual player’s standing in that open. Basically NTENNIS does not support the notability of amateurs (even if they win a grand slam if that slam was not professional at the time). That doesn’t necessarily mean that this individual couldn’t still pass SIGCOV though if sources are found and presented here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even do a WP:BEFORE search before opening this AFD? The article cites an obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald for his death (undeniably a reliable source), which makes me think that there is more coverage in Australian newspaper archives. Iffy★Chat -- 11:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a before search, although tennis is not my area of expertise. The trouble with obituaries is that there are two kinds: one which is written by an independent staff writer and another which is submitted and paid for by family/ people connected to the person who died. Typically obits which are independent have a named staff writer with a byline and the obit itself has a title other than obituary. Since neither are present in this ref and there is no url link it is impossible to tell the quality, independence, or significance of this particular reference.4meter4 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are possibly over 1600 references at:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword.phrase=lionel%20brodie&keyword=tennis

I have not looked in detail at these, but even assuming that the vast majority are trivial and-or routine and some are not about the subject, it will only require ~ 1% of them to be good ones to pass GNG. Looks like no BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make assumptions about BEFORE searches. My research skill sets are obviously not the same as yours, and where and how people search makes a big difference. I was not even aware of the existence of https://trove.nla.gov.au for example. Please read WP:AGF.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have substantially edited the page, expanding the content and adding several IRS. Brodie clearly passes WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on Cabrils's excellent work plus Aoziwe's newspaper search, I am withdrawing this nomination as it appears SIGCOV has been met.4meter4 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feidias Panayiotou[edit]

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

No appearances at Football Database. GSA and Soccerway have him down for one cup game but that was against a team in a lower tier of Cyprus, so no basis for WP:NFOOTBALL from that game. World Football mentions him taking part in two legs of a 16-0 thrashing at the hands of ACF Gloria Bistrița so he does narrowly cross the line for NFOOTBALL. Playmaker Stats has two appearances for the same time period, which I presume to be the same games but it doesn't provide any confirmation. Cyprus FA has no pro appearances listed. Super League Greece has nothing.

Google News has no coverage, the article relates to a much more prominent TikToker. Google Images also has next to nothing. A Greek language DDG search contains almost nothing. I did get a couple of passing mentions in the likes of Contra but nothing that addresses him in detail at all. I have done a number of searches and can't find any evidence towards WP:GNG, which supersedes any presumed notability from playing two games of football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the substantial coverage that is needed to show an actual passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' passes NFOOTY, and scrapes GNG imo.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariyam Azra[edit]

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

I previously created this article. Since she has not, to my knowledge, served at national cabinet level, nor served in a legislative body, I am unconvinced as to whether she passes WP:POLITICIAN. Uhooep (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think her positions as Minister of State for Law and Gender and Minister of State for Education do pass WP:NPOL as national offices; I'm not 100% sure, however. Curbon7 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Minister of State in a national govt is definitely enough to pass WP:NPOL. --Soman (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Maldives, a state minister is not equivalent to a minister; state ministers are not members of the cabinet. However, it is an appointment dependent on Majlis approval and Azra also served as head of the Human Rights Commission, both of which can be classified as national offices, passing NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We include ministers outside cabinet in NPOL, generally. Furius (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of a national Human Rights Commission and multiple very high ranking government roles seems notable to me (although the article could use expansion) NHCLS (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely passes WP:NPOL. Er Naanu (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Kapor[edit]

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

Serbia caps are not covered by WP:NRU and references provided are insufficient for WP:GNG. In addition, he has no hits in Google News in Serbian and no coverage through DDG in Serbian. I found a couple of mentions on his own club's website (Pobednik), a couple of mentions on Wordpress blogs, Blogspot blogs and two mentions in Rugby Ozone; one relating to a Serbia Cup fixture and the other relating to a loss to Andorra while playing for Serbia.

We hold BLPs to a high standard in terms of GNG and I can't find any evidence to show that Kapor is notable enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NRU with no professional appearances, and international appearances for Serbia are non-notable. In terms of GNG again as nom states there is some trivial coverage and not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rider[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio personality, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for radio personalities. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test requires externally validated evidence of significance, such as notable awards and/or the reception of significant coverage in media independent of oneself. But the notability claim here is that he exists, and the sourcing is entirely primary source content on the self-published website of his own (former) employer rather than any evidence of independent coverage. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NJOURNALIST, there is nothing written about him in RS and no indication of any of the four criteria. --hroest 20:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails BLP, ANYBIO, JOURNALIST. Unable to find any independent reliable sources that cover this subject or any awards this person has received. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Fails WP:GNG and per above can't find any independent reliable sources. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NJOURNALIST per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucile Randon[edit]

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

This article, just like many other longevity pages, is purely unnecessary. Out of four paragraphs, one is only one sentence, one is pure statistics, one is life information, and one is about her COVID-19 infection. Her article can be easily merged and made into a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would say this fails WP:BIO, under WP:BASIC, because its just trivial coverage of a person, focused entirely on two elements - their long life, and their survival of COVID-19. Unless someone could examine the article's subject some more - background, history, other notable elements (beyond those covered) - I don't think this article is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia.GUtt01 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changed my mind on this, based on a good point in this discussion by Furius. Apart from being a good stub, I think the concern is for the lede of the article and a couple of sentences, which could just be amended and changed since they do appear to be original research without appropriate citations. GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I believe that a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians would suffice. In the past, the majority of these supercentenarian articles have been deleted or merged, and Randon, in my opinion, is no more notable than any of them.MattSucci (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles cited on the page easily pass WP:GNG and she is the second oldest person in the world. There are plenty more sources and there is plenty more information about her life on the fr.wiki page. Furius (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I might not want to read up about a person who has lived a long life, I would say that, regardless of this, such an article would only really be worth the mustard of notability, if there was more on the subject themselves, beyond being the longest-living person (regardless of first or second in that respect). Other than being the oldest to survive COVID-19, I would expect a bit more than this on the article:

What was their occupation?

What was their life like?

Did they make other achievements?

Did they witness significant events in their life?

Not having such details just doesn't make the article notable enough. Without that personal life information and maybe some other worthwhile information to make such an achievement seem more notable than it sounds as it is, it hardly seems right to have this article exist on the merits of being a person who lived longest/second-longest, and survived against COVID. GUtt01 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) All of this is covered in the French wiki article, supported by reliable sources - she was a governess to the Peugeot family and others in the 1910s, converted to Catholicism and became a nun in 1923, and worked in hospitals in that capacity from 1945 until 1979. (b) The point is that there are multiple reliable sources in English and in French for this figure, so it passes GNG and is notable. You can't just create new criteria for notability and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Furius (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a second check of the article, I think the grounds for deletion just got eroded by your argument.GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about deleting it completely - I agree that the subject is notable. Too notable to be deleted, but not notable enough for a standalone article. There's nothing in the article that can't be merged into a mini-bio (similar to what's there already in the article, just in a section of the page List of French supercentenarians). As for the French wiki article, why, I might change my mind if you translated that French to English! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you find some translator program or webservice on the internet? GUtt01 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the French article and, apart from a few facts, there's basically nothing that isn't already in her article here. MattSucci (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don’t we add those facts? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that info regarding the name and occupation of her father and details of her sister are necessary. MattSucci (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's called padding. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article (which may change if she becomes the world's oldest person). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although she is known only for one thing, the article got 15,483 pageviews in the last 30 days, which means there is a great interest in her and we should keep it. Peter303x (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable WP:GNG --I am One of Many (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she clearly passes WP:GNG Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - has so much WP:SIGCOV going back many years before she contracted COVID-19. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mouchaak[edit]

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

does not have a single source , clearly does not meet WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Dey[edit]

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

The subject is not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Batamore (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Batamore (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Applying WP:HEY, I have added WP:RS. Now subject meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Thank you. 2409:4061:2C86:ED7B:F1C7:D63E:2EF8:396E (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP talking about WP:HEY. Quite impressive. Possibly a seasoned wikipedia editor is sitting behind it and directing this whole sham operation. - Hatchens (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The series of promotional article for Bengali/Indian TV shows are popping up every week. Bunch of IDs and IPs first creates articles about the show with doubtful citations from WP:TOI and then in a day or two they start creating articles about its lead actors (who are mostly having a career less than a year or two). If the actors article fails to qualify, they somehow get the redirection to respective TV shows of those actors. Classic PR operation. Besides, deleteing this article, we ought to identfify other articles, the IDs and the reviewers who are involved in this sham activities. -Hatchens (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is nowhere near substantial enough for GNG and clearly lacks the significant roles required for NACTOR so it's a fairly obvious 'delete' Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SIMBYM Inc[edit]

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

Repeatedly deleted article on a company that appears to fail WP:NCORP. This version does have some of the WP:G11 language removed and is posted by a different account (as the original one was blocked). The article's only decent source (also available here) is an advert and doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. In my WP:BEFORE search I can only find unreliable/user-generated sources on the company such as LinkedIn, CrunchBase, Capterra, Facebook, Twitter etc.

Only claim to notability seems to be the claimed connections with Lakshmi Narayanan and M. S. Swaminathan but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the only source to support these connections seems to be SIMBYM's own website. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nominators reasoning and before and note that this is also possibly a CSD G5 JW 1961^Talk 10:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be valid with the Reference they have given M.S Swaminathan and Lakshmi Narayanan being the Advisor of the Company Elizabethelsa (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethelsa incorrect as the references that you have provided to make this connection make no reference to SIMBYM. Also WP:NOTINHERITED. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any sources found, let alone ones that convey actual notability. Kleuske (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any reliable coverage overall. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion of the company. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments and nomination. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, but textbook WP:PROMO. Grandpallama (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base modifying agent[edit]

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

This page has been around for 11 years with no citations, partly cause there isn't even anything to cite. It's literally just two rather redundant sentences. "Base modifying agent" isn't a specific term used in chemistry, nor any other science field that I am aware of. It doesn't really inform anything.

Honestly I feel like this page exists simply for the sake of existing? I was going to nominate it for PROD, but in the off-chance someone know of some esoteric use of this term I decided on AfD. If not I suppose it could be voted as a speedy delete. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems the sentences aren't even wholly correct. According to Auburn University and this biotechnology book, a base modifying agent is a "chemical mutagen that modifies the chemical structure of one or more bases normally found in DNA." There are some brief mentions, but not enough to pass WP:NCHEM (which is just WP:GNG). Curbon7 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also expecting this to be about DNA damage of some kind. As written this is useless, and if someone wanted to write an article at this title, the page history here wouldn't help. I guess it could be a plausible search term for Mutagen#DNA reactive chemicals, but considering that nobody is looking at this page anyway, it's not worth it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads strangely like an item on a worksheet for a high-school chemistry class: a redundant definition and a non-illuminating example, disconnected from actual scientific parlance. As argued above, the few times that anyone in the literature uses it, they mean something else. And nobody reading a textbook on genetic engineering will have to look up Wikipedia to find out that a base modifying agent is an agent that modifies bases. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a term in general use, and the stub has no RS to support the little it says. This article offers nothing to anyone. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline A11 neologism. The defintion is essentially like saying, "The white cat is white." –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are evenly divided between keep and merge/redirect. Because this shows that deletion is not a realistic prospect, I suggest that any follow-up discussion take the form of a merger proposal on the article's talk page rather than a second AfD. Sandstein 07:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popplio[edit]

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

Non-notable Pokémon species, fails WP:GNG. Reception section has been WP:REFBOMBed with many, non-significant sources and brief mentions in other articles that do not indicate real notability. --LoЯd ۞pεth 16:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a starter in the games and this species's reception is particularly notable. What more notability does Wikipedia staff want? Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Leanne Sepulveda: being a starter Pokémon has never been enough reason for a stand alone article; for instance, Cyndaquil, Totodile, Torchic, Turtwig, etc. do not have individual articles. And I myself am not a member of the "Wikipedia staff", I am just another editor like you. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio With such insightful commentary as "Megan Farokhmanesh of The Verge described Popplio as "very ugly"", it surely examines Popplio's impact on society. Not. This does not demonstrate any notability beyond the very trivial observations of a few critics, and fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep: The article in its present state is definitely not well written, and I do notice that in mainstream video game journalism, a lot of irreverent humor is used in discussions about the Pokemon franchise. That said, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still not a ground for deletion per guideline or policy. This nomination is not properly constructed and does not advocate a valid ground for deletion per WP:GNG with a proper source analysis, and not liking the tone of what a reliable source has to say about the subject is certainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is it necessary for Wikipedia to host another standalone Pokemon article? Probably unnecessary, but then this is verging on an "other stuff exists" argument. Do we need to delete an article about a Pokemon character that has sources like Kotaku, Polygon, Digital Spy, and The Verge (which are not "non-significant sources" by the way) which are specifically devoted to discussing the character in non-trivial detail and not as part of a list, in other words WP:SIGCOV? No, because article content, however poor, does not determine notability. As noted by an editor in another discussion, a character does not need to be "important to the world" to be notable. And per WP:NEXIST, I found three additional reliable sources, plus one more from Kotaku, which specifically critiqued the character: Techradar, Nintendo World Report, Paste Magazine. Haleth (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Haleth: I can asure your that my nomination is not a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I myself love Primarina). The Appearances section consists of a list of video games in which Popplio appear (as does the majority of Pokémon introduced in Gen VII), and minor appearances in other media. The reception section indeed has reliable secondary sources, but these sources cover Popplio in a superficial way, with just random mentions. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lord Opeth, I was suggesting that your AfD is motivated by your disapproval over the contents of the article, as opposed to the subject itself. I find that for the purposes of AfD and assessing notability, most editors disregard the volume of appearances in the body of fictional works a character has appeared in. Consensus seem to focus on the development and reception sections as the key points of contention or scrutiny. In this case, an aggregate of at least 7 distinct reliable sources which specifically discuss the divisive reception over the character is objectively not a form of random mention, the playful or humorous tones notwithstanding (Pokemon started off as a media franchise for consumption by children afterall). Haleth (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this discussion to the attention of Article Rescue Squadron since consensus appears to be unclear so far. Haleth (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio Let's keep the bar high for Pokemon species, please...there are over 800+ species. The Characteristics and Appearances sections can be drafted up for almost any character. Reception section is fluffed up with excessive quotes and repeating the same points over and over. When you cut out the fat, the only meaningful coverage seems to be the articles comparing Popplio to the other starters of that gen. That matter would be better discussed within context at Pokémon Sun and Moon. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG with the sources found and the sources in the article. I do not get this deletion, if it meets WP:GNG, it meets WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haleth. Those sources do give significant coverage of the Pokémon, and I would say enough to meet WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect and Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio. Like I said before, very few Pokémon are notable for Wikipedia articles.LifelongLynx (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coverage on Popplio definitely exists, but that's the best that can be said about it. There's not really much about the character to go indepth on besides spouting off clickbaity material about how cool or uncool it looks. Not enough to fulfill notability requirements without really reaching. There's also no real argument as to why Popplio should have a page over other Pokemon of its ilk._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is sustained coverage about the character's divisive reception. The article in its present state may not be well-written, but the aggregate sourcing following a read paints a different picture, suggesting there is significant discussion among commentators and among players about the perceived dip in quality of design standards, something that most other Pokemon characters simply don't have. Sine critical commentary about a character's design and appearance is a fundamental part of their reception, that satisfies WP:GNG as far as I am concerned. Haleth (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm. The sources offer WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at best, and could be summarized as "fans didn't like it" at a more notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Sources are not particularly substantial. They're not really enough to meet WP:GNG at this time .TTN (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio. Nothing worth merging. Reviewing the WP:THREE cited above: Plush Pokémon Should Not Be $80 And Make Me Cry, The NWR Pokemon Sun and Moon Starter Debate - The Case For Popplio, The Power of Helplessness: Why Everybody Loves Mimikyu and Hates Popplio are the epitome of hot take, unsubstantial soft news—none are suitable for general citation in an encyclopedia. If this is the best we've got, they underscore why these nominations should be uncontroversial redirects. czar 04:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While we are all entitled to our opinions on whether the coverage is substantial or otherwise, even though no source analysis of the existing cited sources has been given, there is certainly no guideline or policy on Wikipedia which prohibits the citation and use of "soft news" on any topics within a generalist encyclopedia that uses crowdfunded user-generated content. Input from numerous editors here confirms as much as that articles which contains elements of "hot takes and unsubstantial news" are not by themselves problematic. They should not be presented as fact in Wikivoice, but in a neutral manner as WP:RSOPINION, though that is an editorial as opposed to a notability concern. Our only concern in this regard should only be whether the source in question is reliable and independent from the subject. Is it the case that sources you questioned fail WP:V, lack an editorial oversight, or that the articles themselves only consist of a single sentence or paragraph like this gem? WP:THREE is also not a vetted guideline; if it is merely meant to be instructive, then I should point out that some editors and even one established guideline believe two distinct sources about the topic would suffice, others may require five, ten or even way more. Haleth (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this isn't a matter of "opinion". We have an established precedent that promotional, low-quality, clickbait, and listicle sources do not somehow compose significant coverage simply for mentioning the character: WP:ROSE, WP:KLEFKI, for starters. The quality of the source absolutely matters. Video game AfDs are a walled garden. Non-video game AfD regulars tear these sources apart all day long. czar 05:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the analysis of the outcome for WP:ROSENBERG then, which is the result of a VG project-wide consensus 6 years ago. There are 3 articles by Kotaku, 2 from Polygon, and the rest, one each from Digital Spy, The Verge, Techradar, Nintendo World Report, and Paste Magazine. Almost all of them are either full-length articles which specifically discuss the character directly and in detail, or presented as substantial comparisons of the reception of its design and attributes to that of another contemporary character which fulfills the requirement of non-trivial coverage, which is more than a trivial mention but does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Quoting the closer from WP:ROSENBERG, none of the articles I brought up talk about the subject in "just a single paragraph, in a list of such paragraphs", and the article is certainly not "almost completely in-universe, failing WP:PLOT". Out of universe commentary as highlighted by the sources I've mentioned is a manifestation of the character's effect on the world, and your opinion that all that commentary is trite and vapid in tone, while probably justifiable from a certain perspective, is an irrelevant concern under the notability guidelines, because that is just opinion based on subjective importance which anyone can espouse about anything. I am not sure why a redirect to WP:KLEFKI even exists or brought up here as it provides no meaningful instructive precedent to this discussion, especially when some of the recent Pokemon AfD's are not closed in the exact same manner.

Even if we are both in agreement that the advice from WP:ROSENBERG is useful, where up to three criteria is suggested by the closer as the basis for a standalone article, it doesn't change the fact that it is not a widely cited precedent like WP:GNG or even WP:NFICTION in AfD discussions, so the so-called Rosenberg resolution probably fits into the definition of a local consensus within a walled garden you just described. Per consensus from the site-wide RfC on Screen Rant, a widely used source which is one of the "low-quality, clickbait, and listicle" sources you deride, the closer determined that it is a "marginally reliable" source, except for BLP articles, which is adequate and reliable enough for other uses. I am sure that includes demonstrating notability for pop culture topics, provided the article does not only mention the subject in passing. I should point out then that all of the sites I emphasized are seen as of a higher quality compared to ScreenRant by other editors, certainly the emerging consensus here indicate that most other editors do not believe there is anything demonstrably unreliable or problematic with sites that use "hot takes" or post "unsubstantial soft news", to the point of being unsuitable for general citation in an encyclopedia as WP:RSOPINION. In the absence of support from guidelines, policy, and a wider consensus local (VG project) or otherwise (Reliable Sources Noticeboard) for your position regarding the quality of coverage for pop culture topics and the subjective importance of topics of a certain nature, yes, it is a matter of opinion. Haleth (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't complicated. If a minor fictional character doesn't have enough specialized, non-promotional coverage to escape the orbit of its originating work of fiction, then we cover it in a character list or not at all. That precedent doesn't need to be enshrined in a formal guideline to be acknowledged as the working consensus. WP:NOTBURO czar 16:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not vetted into a formal guideline or widely discussed outside of select AfD's about video game characters, then it is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Wikipedia's policy on level of consensus is quite clear that consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The RfC for Screen Rant is community consensus on a wider scale. My interpretation is a word for word reading of the closer's finding from WP:ROSENBERG since you brought it up for our consideration, with the more substantial sources highlighted in this discussion judged against it. It has nothing to do with bureaucracy. Haleth (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources demonstrated by Haleth, enough to scrape an article for GNG / NEXIST together. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio. The article in Kotaku about plushie doesn't seem very relevant. This doesn't seem very in depth, it's a bloggish rant about some Pokemon design the article's author doesn't like, and doesn't even focus on Popplio that much - it rants about several designs. How does this type of coverage help us? Minor Internet-era author ranted at a minor outlet in passing about this entity? Ugh. [15] Is the same but even more niche of an outlet (this time the author seems to like the design?). And this is more like the first one but better written. Ok, it seems a few people commented about his design, but I am not convinced the source quality is enough here and I'd recommend merge, while preserving the better part of the reception. All that said, this is better than most other Pokemons which get nothing but how to game-related guides, but frankly, to make this notable, I'd want to see coverage that goes beyond few ranting fans who managed to get few bucks for getting their hack writing published on a niche gaming portal. If the controversy about its design or the design itself gets written up by mainstream media or academics, then I'd vote keep. For now, I think this doesn't meet WP:GNG. With the proliferation of low quality online commentary about virtually anything, a few low quality rants should not be enough to meet GNG. PS. I read the discussion above now and it seems I am echoing User:Czar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that countless Pokemon had their design criticized by someone or another, so that alone is WP:MILL. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it's the strongest Pokémon article, but I do not think that the discussion about Popplio in RSes is trivial. There are plenty of sources that exist that center specifically about Popplio. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge all of the article's contents to some other suitable destination - I have no idea who or what this character is, but even a brief WP:BEFORE search shows significant coverage from reliable independent sources. I know that some people would prefer that Wikipedia editors dedicated their time to writing articles on serious subjects rather than articles about fictional cartoon animals, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete articles on subjects which pass WP:GNG. My lack of familiarity with the subject means that I don't know whether this would warrant its own article from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective, but given the massive scope of Pokémon's popularity I find it quite easy to believe that most of its characters would at the very least warrant sizable sections within articles regarding closely related subjects in the franchise, if not their own standalone articles. There's simply too much coverage from reliable independent sources at this point. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like every Pokemon article was scrutinized too much, but per WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST, clearly notable. 90.252.172.138 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio - Despite the copious amount of sources of vastly varying quality that were WP:REFBOMBed in the Reception section, the actual content of those sources pretty much consists of the information that "Some people didn't like the design and some people did". That single piece of information can easily be included in the main list of Pokemon for that generation, and does not require an entire article to be split out from it, per WP:NOPAGE. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep as no consensus I am not sure if this is my second vote or like that but I see everyone divided. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of media mentions, and per points already mentioned above. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as compromise to deletion. The WP:GNG tells us that "mentions" are not enough, as per WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. It's frustrating to see editors actively cheering for a lack of consensus. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and the whole project is built on our ability to form WP:CONSENSUS and find common ground. Merging allows us to preserve what little valid content there is here, and potentially expand it if coverage should ever change due to new events. No consensus just guarantees that these disputes will continue across multiple AFDs. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your assessment that a merge close as opposed to a declaration of no consensus will stop disputes from continuing across multiple AfD's. There have been countless cases where editors have started AfD's over topics which have been voted as keep at least once in the past, and the outcome of these AfD's are often never the same. There are also valid avenues for people who are dissatisfied with a specific outcome like deletion reviews. A no consensus outcome is just as valid as any other outcome, and unfortunately, it's not our place to tell other editors what not to do or not to believe as long as they are not in direct violation of site policies like being incivil. In any event, I think it's a bad call to address the potential closer directly and tell them how to close it. What this discussion does need is someone to just act and close it asap as it is clearly going nowhere at this point in time. Haleth (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: before this point the AfD was not transcluded on a daily log as per the AfD process. I have transcluded it on today's log and it can be closed in seven days. The above comments must have come from people who saw the AfD template on the article or people who saw the notifications to the video games Wikiproject or the Article Rescue Squadron. Hut 8.5 07:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio as previously mentioned. There are more than 800 Pokémon, so unless this Pokémon is or becomes particularly notable mostly everything can be explained in that section. Winissium (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I feel like the important sources here mostly only talks about how "ugly" the pokemon is, but I feel like it barely meets notability. LaryFoxBoy (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough significant coverage to meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Eye[edit]

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

Don't have enough sources , fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous deletion discussion for this article title was for a different subject (an Australian film distributor, a label of Madman Entertainment). At that time of that discussion, this article was at the title Eastern Eye (newspaper). I presumably created this article by extracting the content from the other one.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 09:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the sources that exist that count, not just those already cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. Widely known media in Northeastern part of India. I was about to remove deletion template but discussion is in progress I would recommend to keep it.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument to keep based on WP:NPOL is not unreasonable, but this is not a clear-cut application of that guideline, and as such it cannot override the other concerns, or indeed the argument that this individual does not meet NPOL. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qadhi Saeed Almurooshid[edit]

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

non-notable/ Based on a single press release, None of the positions imply notability, and no reason to think any other ones would be substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Assessing using WP:NPOL, I think his position as an Executive Councilor for the Emirate of Dubai may meet NPOL. Despite having the term "executive" in its title, the Executive Council seems like a legislative body (its Arabic Wikipedia entry, note the line "The Executive Council proposes and approves government policies and laws. It also supervises the implementation of local and federal laws, the establishment of government agencies, and the follow-up of their performance."). If I'm interpreting that correctly to mean that it's a legislative body, then the subject passes WP:NPOL. However, I'm !voting with weak keep because I may be incorrect with that assertion. Curbon7 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm wrong about that, he would likely fail WP:NPOL, as I don't believe an executive councilor would otherwise count as a statewide office. Curbon7 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing indicates this fellow is an elected politician. It appears he is a successful businessman appointed to an executive council. Nothing here meets GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whiteguru, NPOL does not specify that a politician necessarily has to be elected, merely that they have held a qualifying office. Curbon7 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a prominent government member, director general of the Dubai Health Authority among other things. Googling قاضي المروشد gives plenty results. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DGG. Curbon7's logic can be considered because UAE is not a democratic country. -Hatchens (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

even were it a democratic country, none of the positions he held would usually be elected positions. They're just administrative appointments. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prior to its nomination for deletion, this article was arguably vandalised, with an edit on 29 March removing 8/9ths of the content and all but one of its references and citations. The individual is clearly a public figure with a quite publicly documented track record of service in positions of authority within government (elected or not). Iskandar_323 (talk) 7:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The material removed was a large mass of blatant promotionalism, with extensive name dropping of every possible dignitary, and incredible claims to have had magnificent success in everything he ever worked on. It's conceivable there may be a few valid references in among this, but the material was removed by a reliable and experienced editor, and was the only possible way to rescue what would have otherwise been a clear G11 DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I am not convinced by the "keep" rationales offered and it seems this person has not held any positions of noteworthiness. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep former member of Dubai's version of the Politburo, albeit less democratic. Passes NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BASIC with one press release as the only source. I couldn't find any reliable coverage. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previously linked sources for this page largely appear to have broken or expired. However, it is not hard to find live sources for this page, most notably for the individual's role at the Dubai Health Authority, with the caveat that the correct name spelling appears to be "Qadhi Saeed Al Murooshid", with a space between "Al" and "Murooshid". The page should possibly be moved to reflect this. — Iskandar 323 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - keep arguments don't really convince me. As far as I can see from searching, there appears to be only few useful resources. So subject's notability is quite questionable to me.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Whiteguru. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Stick[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an excellent example of what our "not being a paper-based encyclopedia" allows us to do. This article probably wouldn't make the grade in a printed encyclopedia, but we're not so limited. The topic is, within its limited sphere of interest, notable, and the references seem reasonable. Is this article going to be read by everyone? Clearly not. But for people who are interested in badges and symbols of office, this is worth noting. RomanSpa (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only references I can find for it, which are trivial, are for the University of Manitoba. Though I do see some reference to the phrase, related to hockey, especially in the 19th century, and more recently for curling. But they seem completely unrelated. I can't even find enough independent information to justify a redirect. Though no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in an article about student groups at the University of Manitoba such as University of Manitoba Students' Union. Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are indeed WP:NOTPAPER, but we're also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. NOTPAPER is "not a free pass for inclusion" for otherwise non-notable topics. This subject doesn't seem to have attracted significant coverage in independent sources, so it isn't notable and thus ought to be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient independent sources not published by the University of Manitoba. Suonii180 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. The position is only mentioned in passing by independent and reliable sources (i.e. senior stick so-and-so did such-and-such). TipsyElephant (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groland[edit]

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

Unref article on non-notable topic Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Canal+, there is a TV show titled Groland (which is set in the fictional country). I would propose merging this into the show, but we have no article on the show. I would therefore move to draft with instructions to convert this into an article on the show itself, if possible. BD2412 T 21:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. There may be something rescuable here, French article has more info on this TV show, which may be notable. But the fictional setting is not, and certainly, the current article is pretty bad and not ready for mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft for the television show per the above. The fictional topic currently doesn't have enough sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two "keep" opinions are cursory and not well argued in terms of applicable policy. Sandstein 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated Orchids[edit]

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

A comic book publishing group that does not appear to have become notable. There is only one source being used in the article currently (the current link is dead, but the article in question can be found here, and reads suspiciously like a press release). Aside from that one article, the only other mention I could find was in a Bleeding Cool article, here, which only consists of two sentences of coverage. The articles on their four published works appear to have all been previously deleted for notability concerns, and I was unable to find any significant coverage on either the company or their published works that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two of those sources are actually the same article, that was just posted twice on the same site, and the Bleeding Cool article is the one I mentioned in my nomination as only having a very brief, two sentence mention of the company. It seems like the only place that has more than a brief mention of the company are all from the same site (AnimationXpress), and per the WP:GNG, "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". Thus, I still don't see this passing the WP:GNG even with your additions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The criterion I use to decide if an article is worth keeping is to ask how likely it is that someone (other than the author) would want to look for it at Wikipedia. In this case I think the answer is probably yes. Athel cb (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing on this, most search results are about literal illustrations of orchids. Lacks enough independent coverage. Avilich (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be no agreement as to whether or not the amount of coverage in reliable sources is in-depth or not, and therefore no consensus as to whether or not GNG is met or not. No other indicaitons of notability were presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Johnson-Wheeler[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We already have articles in The Independent and Vogue, both considered "generally reliable" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. NemesisAT (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One article in each, and the headline of one introduces her as "Boris Johnson's daughter". Those articles don't make her notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also have an article in The Sunday Times, another reliable source. I personally think the subject now meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The headline of that article begins "Boris Johnson's children", which I think is further proof that she doesn't have independent notability. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that the Vogue piece was written by the subject, so it hardly qualifies as independent coverage. It's a primary source. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: per my comments above, I don't think she is notable enough for her own article, but the information could be merged into Boris Johnson and Marina Wheeler's articles. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Boris Johnson. Coverage is sparse and rather indirect. May be notable later but seems WP:TOOSOON now. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now it is WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A review of news reporting shows she is notable in my view. She has put herself into the public eye with her modeling and is the current PM's daughter, in the UK this is going to make someone pass GNG. If she was a minor I would keep in a "family of" article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Multiple articles about her recently, including in the Independent.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empire State University[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was then redirected by User:Jhenderson777 to Features of the Marvel Universe (quite a problematic article in itself), but the redirect was quickly undone by User:Lowellian with the edit summary "believe subject is notable". Well, per my argument above I don't believe this subject is notable, this is the usual background location in comics and the article is nothing but a list of comic book issues and plotlines it passively appears in. For a related discussion from few months ago see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hudson University, but here I think the sourcing is even worse (note: there appears to a real word organization using this name which seems to be mention in passing in some sources too; it may be just a misnaming for the real-world Empire State College...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every point of minutia that turns up in comics is worth analyzing in an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fancruft per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the overwhelming majority of sources cited are not secondary, independent, or significant coverage, and there doesn't seem to be any anywhere else. Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable Nitesh003 (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some of the "keep" voters have demonstrated that the subject is good enough to pass WP:GNG aside from being the Wikimedian of the Year. Additional concerns regarding the person can take place in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Najjar[edit]

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

While certainly admirable, being the Wikimedian of the Year 2021 does not automatically confer encyclopedic notability; we still require significant coverage in reliable sources. In web searches, I only found [16], as well as a passing mention in [17]. These are insufficient for notability. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is a guideline only (the clue is in the name). Being made WotY confers notability, and we allow article creation to complete a set, as in this case. Media coverage will undoubtedly follow in the coming week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I agree with the importance of reliable sources when writing an article, and "Alaa Najjar" article is no exemption where there are good Arabic citable sources for him and his work years ago until now, I could mention some:
- An-Najah National University Electronics journal (Sawa)": Article in 2018 named Wikipedia education program in its second edition a stamp from Al-Najah University students to the electronics space (its original title برنامج ويكيبيديا للتعليم بنسخته الثانية بصمة من طلبة جامعة النجاح في الفضاء الإلكتروني) where we can find Alaa's name in thankful part as Admin Alaa Najjar from Palestine.
- Libyan electronics journal: 2017, a talk about "Arabic Wikipedia 17" There is a picture for Alaa and mentioning him as one of the supervisors for social media accounts.
- Saudi Arabian Journal: "May 2021" Learn about the Saudi WikiDowen Initiative to publish in the Wikipedia encyclopedia تعرّف على مبادرة "ويكي دوّن" السعودية للنشر في موسوعة "ويكيبيديا" mentioning Alaa's name as Wikimedians of the levant member, in addition to being an editor in Wikipedia.

Plus many others, I could add them to the article.--Sandra Hanbo (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently inclined to delete, as all of the citations above appear to be passing coverage, not in-depth, which is what we require. Can an Arabic speaker clarify? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going in-depth there are "Ultra sawt ألترا صوت" article حوار خاص مع علاء نجار.. الفائز بجائزة "ويكيميدي العام" 2021 where I would like to mention about UltraSawt having branches in many Arabic countries: Palestine, Tunis, Iraq, Algeria, Sudan. Arab medical professional Alaa Najjar honoured by Wikipedia for Covid-19 coverage in addition to the Wikimedia publishing of diff.wikimedia.org [18] and welcoming him in Wikijournal med, plus to the oversights mentioned by me above, which will help to cite his roles in Wikimedia foundation. I could help with Arabic translation if you or anybody needs it. --Sandra Hanbo (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a sources in Arabic (How does Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, work? Some principles of digital advocacy) and (The Wikipedia Education Program, in its second edition, is an imprint of An-Najah University students in cyberspace)in Arabic and this [19] but is not centered for him --Nehaoua (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning the Wikimedian Prize of the Year out of thousands of people is notable, also everyone who won this award has an article on Wikipedia.
I think that Alaa deserves an article on Wikipedia. By looking at the references in Arabic, we see that Alaa deserves an article. --Osps7 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to push back against some of the arguments being made here. While WP:GNG is indeed "a guideline only", we shouldn't disregard it in favor of personal standards of importance. As far as the specific sources that are required for the GNG, we need nontrivial coverage, not just an article that mentions the subject in passing. Of all the sources presented so far, it seems like the nontrivial ones are the UltraSawt article and the The National News article (I mentioned the latter in the nomination)—at this time, I would maintain the view that this isn't enough nontrivial coverage to justify a standalone biography, although I appreciate that perhaps a couple more sources in the same vein as these two might change my mind. Mz7 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think another relevant angle to this is WP:BLP1E. A part of the motivation for this AfD, which I wish I made clear from the start, was a desire to be respectful of this Wikipedia editor’s privacy. I don’t see Alaa as a particularly high-profile individual, and if sources primarily discuss Alaa only in the context of winning the WotY award, I think our BLP1E policy requires us to err on the side of privacy. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"While WP:GNG is indeed 'a guideline only', we shouldn't disregard it in favor of personal standards of importance." And nor did I: I explicitly stated "Being made WotY confers notability, and we allow article creation to complete a set, as in this case.". I also predicted "Media coverage will undoubtedly follow in the coming week"; QED: [20], [21], [22]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
commentI agree with you, and article should be deleted @Mz7: Should the Arabic language Admin and steward be rewarded with an article on Wikipedia? And there is no reliable sources coverage about him? Just because he won the wiki award and so on, Arab voters are editors on the Arabic wiki and so they vote for their admin, who created the article, is an editor on the Arabic wiki. Is this fair?
He does not have a page in Arabic because the administrators do not consider him a notable person Qatar Lover QA (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of علي أبو عمر (talk · contribs). Pahunkat (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and most important the subject is the winner of the Wikimedian of the Year award for 2021. Abishe (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposal to delete this page for the Wikimedian of the Year 2021 is a tragic but classic example of systemic bias on Wikipedia. @Jesswade88: @Deb: @Jimbo Wales: @Rosiestep: @Discott:
Ear-phone (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the preceding comments that the article is above the line of sufficiency. This person is the winner of the Wikimedian of the Year award in its main category and there's evidently growing coverage in reliable sources. Even if we have to be strict for some reason, this is at least a borderline case. In such cases, we usually err on the side of inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in the sources presented above for keep votes, there is only a passing mention and largely focused on the Wikimedia side. It would be suitable to include details of Najjar at the Wikimedian of the Year article in this instance. I also think this is not a borderline case unless more suitable sources appear, but even if it was, we should err on the side of deletion so as to not see WMF be accused of naval-gazing (topics relevant to Wikimedia being given articles when equivalent unrelated ones are not). I'm also concerned that there's some CANVASSing. Kingsif (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last sentence of Andy Mabbett's message of 15:06 on 18 August 2021. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Wikimedians of the Year have articles, article Wikimedian of the Year is a Featured List. The award is aimed at promoting Wikimedia ideas and values among people, creating article is a way to promote, and deleting it is a way to topple. --ssr (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the arguments in favor of "Keep" seem to be on the basis of WotY providing notability, and BLP does provide for this, with WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or". However, I haven't seen any arguments for how this is met; can those in favor provide such arguments so that we can properly consider them?
I would also like to echo Mz7 and pushback against the concept of "GNG" being just a guideline; I've always interpreted it in the opposite direction, that for something to be notable it has to pass GNG (or a subject-specific guideline), but it is a guideline because passing it doesn't guarantee notability, it just opens the possibility of it.
Finally, I would like to ask if anyone has found any further sources? At the moment, the only source that I can see indisputably passes GNG is the National News source (the interview may also pass, depending on ones opinion of interviews in regards to GNG and independence.) BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: This article clearly meets the first two criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Wikimedian of the Year is a notable award not because we're biased Wikipedians but because it recognises the contributions by people to a project that attracts around 2 billion visits every day. If influencing billions of people is not notable, then I wonder what really is.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril Simeonovski: I don't think we can decide if an award is notable or significant based on what the award is for or who it covers; if we did, we would have to consider an award with ambitious scope but otherwise totally lacking in what we would normally term notability or significance, as notable and significant. I think we need actually evidence to prove an award meets ANYBIO #1 - just as we need evidence to prove an entity meets GNG, by the presentation of three sources that meet all five points. BilledMammal (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an award is not notable or significant based on what it is for, I presume it's the coverage in reliable sources and, in that case, Wikimedian of the Year clearly passes given the amount of sources already in the article. As for GNG, it's merely a guideline as stated above but, even if we take it as a rule, this article doesn't fail to meet its five criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I miscommunicated. Where I used the word "notable", I should have used the word "well-known". An award can be notable per wikipedia's criteria, but not sufficiently "well-known and significant" to confer notability on its recipients; we would need to establish that a given award does meet that criteria.

In regards to the five criteria, could you help me by providing the three articles that meet the five criteria? So far I've only be able to find one or two, depending on how one counts interviews? BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy has already provided reliable sources that confirm notability above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first meets GNG, but I think two and three fail the "significant coverage" requirement, as while they mention Najjar, that is all they do, with their coverage focusing on winners or honorable mentions of other Wikimedian awards. BilledMammal (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Nitesh003 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question, have we asked علاء if he even wants this article on him? If he doesn't, there's a relatively strong argument to delete. I'm not chiming in either way other than to say that its worth asking the person involved their thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the person subject to the article thinks about it is completely irrelevant. Lionel Messi may wish not to have a Wikipedia article but that doesn't mean we should delete it. We add content based on what is in the reliable sources. Even if the person echoes the wish not to have an article and it appears in reliable sources as such, I assume that the opposition would end up in a separate section but it won't affect the article's existence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would suggest its not "completely irrelevant." Alaa is a "relatively unknown, non-public person", he's not Lionel Messi. The article on him on ar.wiki w:ar:علاء نجار redirects to the page on Wikimedian of the year; presumably if he was an extremely notable person to the point where we shouldn't take his thoughts into consideration, the project in his native language would have an article on him. I'm not actually arguing to delete at this point: I think that we've established that Wikimedians of the Year get an article as a precedent. At the same time, most of them are relatively unknown, non-public people. Since we know who they are and they're familiar with Wikipedia, if an article is being considered for deletion, it is worth asking them the question if they have a preference, and there is a policy justification for that. Basically I only commented above because I think from a human angle, we owe him the courtesy of pinging him and asking the question.TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bad idea to judge the notability of a "relatively unknown, non-public person" by asking him whether he wants an article or not. Once again, we decide about notability based on coverage in reliable sources and someone's personal preference doesn't put weight if it's a borderline case. Also, this may set a precedent that other people may hang on to in the future in order to influence what information to be included in the articles about them (Note: We've already had cases on some Wikipedias in which people insisted information about them to be censored.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding me: the policy says we can delete the article even if he's notable if he doesn't want it in cases like this. It doesn't say we have to, but it is a factor we can consider. I'm not saying we should judge notability based on it. I think it is clear from our standards that Wikimedians of the Year meet the inclusion criteria. Just because someone is notable doesn't mean we have to have an article, though, and yes, the privacy preferences of an relatively unknown person is something we should consider when its very easy to ask. If he doesn't respond, it'll obviously be kept, but I do think we at least owed him the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see it exists as a possibility in our policies but, in my opinion, that's not something we should invoke in such cases unless the person is threatened because of the availability of some information in public and censoring that information is necessary for safety reasons.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on the discussion above; there have been no arguments presented for the Wikimedian of the Year award being a "well-known and significant award", per the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. I am also not satisfied that GNG has been passed, as no editor has been able to list three articles that meet all the requirements. I recognize this goes against the developing consensus, but it is important to note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies. If it turns out that either of these two bars are met, please ping me and we can have a discussion about WP:BLP1E. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anshelle[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this band meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Nominations for non-notable awards do not indicate significance, and neither do chart results in the complete absence of substantive sourcing. I wasn't able to find anything substantial on a search, and the German article has nothing better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also tried hard to find some more substantial coverage, but it's just not there. PepperBeast (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pallav Pandey[edit]

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

Fails GNG. References are mostly about his company's fundraising or startup churnalism from unreliable sources. M4DU7 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to notable company that he founded. Stand alone article doesn't seem suitable for now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom fails GNG. Lacks reliable news coverage. Namkongville (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Taggart#Cast. Sandstein 19:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Taggart[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). At best this can be redirected to Taggart. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination, like the prod, provides no specifics about the subject – it's just a bland, generic cut/paste. When one actually searches for information, it's easy to find sources about this iconic character. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"easy to find sources about this iconic character". Surely, linking them here is easy too. Please do. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources such as The i, Glasgow Times, and Famous Detectives establish notability. Definitely room for improvement and better citations in this article. NemesisAT (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first source contains one sentence of analysis about his homophobia. Interesting, but not WP:SIGCOV. Second story doesn't go beyond a plot summary. As for the last source, it's a plot summary again and I don't see how it is reliable (some old style website created by unknown party about "famous detectives")? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taggart#Cast. Current sources are insufficient to establish notability independent of the parent article. TTN (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Whether or not the character himself is notable, Taggart is not a long article and could have expansion on the plot/storyline of the series, and per WP:NOPAGE a separate article is not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the Taggart article. Articles about characters are typically only appropriate if the character is widely discussed in their own right, which usually only happens if they appear in multiple different works (spinoffs, novelizations, etc.). --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taggart#Cast. The sources adequately show notability for the series, not the character. Ifnord (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This seems to be a borderline case, as the less cursory contributions to this discussions indicate. A talk page merger discussion is a possibility for a follow-up. Sandstein 15:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian A. M. Fuller[edit]

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

No indication of notability as an individual. References are not enough to prove notability of the subject. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak-keep but it's a tricky one. Breeding freshwater catfish is a niche hobby, but quite a large niche so far as its occupiers are concerned, and clearly Fuller is a big fish in the pond he's decided to cultivate. The trouble is, if your area is niche, it will only get published in niche places, so a person like Fuller is never going to appear in the Times or Guardian, it's always going to be in WeirdFishMagazine and CoryBreedersMag or wherever. I'd go for a weak-keep because (1) he's had a species named after him, which is quite an accolade; (2) it's impossible to find any website or fish magazine mentioning Corydoras without it mentioning Fuller's name (i.e. there are no independent sources because anyone who knows anything about Corydoras is a friend of Fuller's, but this very fact argues his relevance, if we consider freshwater catfish breeding to be notable); and (3) the alternatives of merging into Corydoras generally or Corydoras fulleri would unbalance those articles by putting too much Fuller-information into what should have been a Fish-article. I don't think Fuller is going to be easy to classify using WP's normal notability guidelines, because he's not quite a businessman, not quite an author, and not quite an academic; he's occupying a unique spot with a foot (fin?) in each. Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 00:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Corydoras. This was a difficult one to evaluate for the reasons outlined by Elemimele, but in the end there's just not enough significant independent coverage for Fuller to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. While, his work is considered important in his niche field, he doesn't fit WP:NACADEMIC, and much of his research isn't peer reviewed (only has a few hits on scholar). The coverage in the magazines don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT as they're written mostly by people within the same small niche (friends of Fuller). His work should be given WP:DUEWEIGHT in the articles of the fish that he researched, but I don't see a policy based justification for keeping a separate article for Fuller. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would think keep on the basis of the species, and articles like this about that which are scholarly and independent and mention the derivation of tha name. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luiz-Tencatt-2/publication/350785323_Corydoras_fulleri_Siluriformes_Callichthyidae_a_new_catfish_species_from_the_rio_Madeira_basin_Peru/links/6082c18b8ea909241e1b331c/Corydoras-fulleri-Siluriformes-Callichthyidae-a-new-catfish-species-from-the-rio-Madeira-basin-Peru.pdf and to a lesser extent https://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showproduct.php/product/1265 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Elemimele's thoughtful and entertaining analysis. I think notability guidelines are essential but we have to recognize the niche outliers. Also, having a species of fish named after you seems to indicate passing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arthur Piver. Sandstein 07:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lodestar (trimaran)[edit]

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

No need for this article. Fails GNG. This article should be merged with Trimaran or redirected to Arthur Piver. Shaji issac (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shaji issac (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shaji issac (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arthur Piver per above. Dronebogus (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arthur Piver per nom and above. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basin Corner, Delaware[edit]

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

Another case of not reading the source/maps well. Delaware Place Names calls this a "locality"; the topos ratify this in spades, showing first of all an unlabelled crossroads with nothing about, and then a cloverleaf surrounded by industrial/commercial business on three quadrants, the fourth being occupied by Wilmington Airport. No evidence that anyone ever thought of this as a separate settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - newspapers.com results refer to this overwhelmingly as a road junction, pretty much everything is about road work. Agree with nominator, this doesn't seem to have ever been a community. Hog Farm _Talk 05:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owl Trap, Virginia[edit]

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

Frankly, I can't figure out what this site is/was. GNIS is sourced to a county highway map; topos show a road junction with little there. I found a single reference to the Owl Trap post office being in Mr. Dutton's store in 1920, as well as references to a modern housing development, a road junction, a vague "area", and a modern landfill.

So really, all I can determine is that the Owl Trap p.o. was in a store in 1920, that Virginia Country Real Estate was advertising Owl Trap as a housing development in 1992, and that talks about putting a landfill here evidently started in 1993. I'm not seeing good evidence for notability. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hog Farm's assessment. I'm not sure there was even a post office here; the article I found is a letter to the editor mentioning the need for one since the mail had to be dropped off at Mr. Dutton's store. –dlthewave ☎ 14:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 04:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fubarite[edit]

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

Having reviewed this short article, I've concluded that this has no chance of ever being more than a dictionary definition (and an urban dictionary quality entry at that). The source currently in the article is a mere passing mention, and more search for more sources has found more of the same. Full disclosure, I removed three internet message board posts that were used as "sources" shortly before nominating. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTDICT. It's an urban dictionary-level inside joke that has no reliable sourcing at all. (Actually, the urban dictionary entry is better quality lol). Curbon7 (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary entry, though I have salvaged it as wikt:fubarite. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. author requested deletion, no keeps here —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghan presidential election[edit]

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

Will most likely not happen, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete This year's poster child for WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanma Niranjavan Sreenivasan[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems from my English language searches like this does not meet WP:GNG. Watchlisting this as there may be further sources identified that would chage my vote. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also eligible for G5 deletion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Markshazel. MER-C 08:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Davis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion. Fails GNG for info are either info routine sport reports or the sources are not independent or reliable. Cassiopeia talk 01:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA since he has zero top tier fights. Fight matrix currently ranks him as the #224 lightweight. The sources are mainly databases and routine sports reporting. I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. user:Sheijiashaojun, I have not read everything you have posted, that might make me a bad admin but the little I did read seemed to be making the same points over and over. If you want to be listened to, try and be more succint next time.

Much of the discussion revolved around whether or not the journal was indexed in a selective database. My reading of NJOURNALl is that it does not have to be in order to meet NJOURNAL, (but if it doesn't it is likely to fail NJOURNAL). However, a GNG case has also been made, and if that succeeds then the NJOURNAL status is a moot point. Two sources were put forward for GNG (Columbia and China Heritage Quarterly). No argument was put forward that these sources were not sufficient for GNG (but a third source, a French review, was deemed insufficient depth). There is therefore enough put foreward in favour of GNG without opposition for this to be keep. SpinningSpark 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian History (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason given on talk page. Citations on GScholar are minimal and do not indicate notability. PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does have independent sources, and history citations are always low, so these citations from Google Scholar are plenty. Editors and contributors independently notable, produced by a national public university. Selective databases skew recent, because there were no such databases in 1970s and 1980s when this journal was most prominent (note the name change, Papers on Far Eastern History is the former name), though I do note that it is patchily carried by which is a selective database, albeit one limited to Australia: https://search.informit.org/journal/eah. . Meets all three criteria for WP:NJournals (Criteria 2 below) but most prominently meets Criterion 3 as a journal of historical importance in Australian Asian studies, since it predates the current major journal, Asian Studies Review, or the main Asian Studies association the Asian Studies Association of Australia hence keep. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long list copied from GScholar

[CITATION] SECRET HISTORY OF MONGOLS I Rachewiltz - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1977 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 80 Related articles

[CITATION] Architecture on the Shanghai Bund JW Huebner - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1989

 Cited by 17 Related articles

[CITATION] SOME REMARKS ON TOREGENE EDICT OF 1240 I DERACHEWILTZ - Papers on Far Eastern …, 1981 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 14 Related articles

[CITATION] Silver and the Fall of the Ming: A Reassessment B Moloughney, X Weizhong - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1989

 Cited by 43 Related articles

CITATION] An artist and his epithet: notes on Feng Fizikai and manhua G Barmè - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1989

 Cited by 10 Related articles

[CITATION] The modern relevance of Shui-hu chuan: its influence on rebel movements in nineteenth-and twentieth-century China J Chesneaux - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1971

 Cited by 10 Related articles

[CITATION] The collapse of scriptural Confucianism M Elvin - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1990

 Cited by 32 Related articles

[CITATION] 'WEI SHU'RECORDS ON THE BESTOWAL OF IMPERIAL PRINCESSES DURING THE NORTHERN WEI-DYNASTY J Holmgren - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1983 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 9 Related articles

[CITATION] WIDOW CHASTITY IN THE NORTHERN DYNASTIES-THE LIEH-NU BIOGRAPHIES IN THE'WEI SHU' J Holmgren - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1981 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 27 Related articles

[CITATION] Empress Dowager Ling of the Northern Wei and the T'o-pa sinicization question J Holmgren - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1978

 Cited by 26 Related articles

[CITATION] BOYI AND SHUQI+ THEIR ROLE IN THE POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN SHANG AND ZHOU AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR … A Vervoorn - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1983 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 26 Related articles

[CITATION] THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE IN CHINA DURING THE YUAN-DYNASTY SJ HUANG - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1986 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 24 Related articles

[CITATION] THE'SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS'. 8. I DERACHEWILTZ - Papers on Far Eastern …, 1980 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 9 Related articles

[CITATION] The Use of the Terms 'Tjina'and 'Tionghoa'in Indonesia: An Historical Survey C Coppel, L Suryadinata - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1970

 Cited by 22 Related articles

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

[CITATION] TANSHIHHUAI AND HSIEN-PI TRIBES OF 2ND-CENTURY AD KHJ Gardiner… - … on Far Eastern …, 1977 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 17 Related articles

[CITATION] CONTRACTION OF FORWARD DEFENSES ON THE NORTH CHINA FRONTIER DURING THE MING DYNASTY CH Wu - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1978 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 6 Related articles

[CITATION] THE RITUAL DISPUTE OF SUNG, YING-TSUNG+ A SCHOLASTIC DEBATE OF THE SUNG-DYNASTY CT Fisher - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1987 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 15 Related articles

[CITATION] Northern Wei as a conquest dynasty: current perceptions; past scholarship J Holmgren - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1989

 Cited by 15 Related articles

[CITATION] Politics from History: Lei Haizong and the Zhanguo Ce Clique MR Godley - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1989

 Cited by 6 Related articles

[CITATION] ACCOMMODATION AND LOYALISM-LIFE OF LU, LIU-LIANG (1629-1683). 1. DISSIDENT INTELLECTUALS AND EARLY CHING STATE TS Fisher - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1977 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 14 Related articles

[CITATION] Lei Feng and the “Lei Fengs of the Eighties”' B Geist - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1990

 Cited by 13 Related articles

[CITATION] The Identification of Chinese Cities in Arabic and Persian Sources DD Leslie - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1982 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 13 Related articles

[CITATION] SUEMATSU, KENCHO AND PATTERNS OF JAPANESE CULTURAL AND POLITICAL-CHANGE IN THE 1880S RHP Mason - Papers on Far Eastern History, 1979 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 12 Related articles

[CITATION] 'SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS'. 7. ID RACHEWILTZ - Papers on Far Eastern …, 1978 - AUSTRALIAN NAT UNIV DEPT FAR …

 Cited by 5 Related articles

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the editors and university being notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Concerning the "historic importance": are there any sources that show this? AS for the citations, those would not be enough to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. As for the "recent skew" of databases, that is incorrect. Most databases, including GScholar, go back many years. I appreciate your efforts, but unfortunately your arguments fail to convince, sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When this is a substantial part of the output of a university centre, or of the academic work of editors, it is notable. I don't see why WP:NOTINHERITED would apply, because work on the journal is constitutive of their notability, not incidental. Historic importance is shown in article for instance by the early publications of Igor de Rachewiltz's translations of The Secret History of the Mongols, first published there. The history of East Asia is a low citation environment, especially in English, and Google Scholar is useless for Chinese and Japanese sources. Most databases are hopeless on pre-electronic journals like this one. You are acting in good faith, but I don't think you have an accurate read of what is notable in Asian studies or history. Note also considerable citation in books, especially in works on East Asian History in the 1970s-90s. Clearly professional historians have long regarded it as a reliable source. https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22papers+on+far+eastern+history%22 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is a reliable source that comments upon the role of the journal in publishing that secret history. Or sources that comment how the centre is notable because it publishes this journal. Finally, please note that being a reliable source has no bearing on notability. We have lots of RS that are not notable and lots of unreliable sources that are. The correlation is zero. I won't comment further, it's all been said, let's give other editors the chance to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I have given that reliable source: An article in Mongolian Studies (another notable journal that could use a page) and another from Monumenta Serica. I have furthermore given sources from Columbia University and University of Sydney citing about the journal as well as mentions in articles in Republican China and in a publication from the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Wikipedia's own page on The Secret History of the Mongols mentions it, giving sources, and I didn't put it there. It has not all been said, and I think I should point out where we differ, because it would be a shame to lose a page. Information about peer-reviewed journals is useful to scholars and students of history. Books and journals are where historical knowledge is recorded, and it is important to understand the context of those publications. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Mongolian Studies is about the "Secret History", not the journal. Our article on the "Secret History" doesn't mention this journal either (not that it matters, WP cannot be used as a source for itself). --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct on either count. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the Secret History: "between 1972 and 1985, Igor de Rachewiltz published a fresh translation in eleven volumes of the series Papers on Far Eastern History accompanied by extensive footnotes commenting not only on the translation but also various aspects of Mongolian culture." The MS article is about Rachewiltz's book, but you said I needed a citation showing the influence of work in the journal. Quoting from the Mongolian Studies article, Rachewiltz's subsequent book was "a revision of quite similar translations of individual chapters published by the author during the years 1971-86 in the Australian National University's Papers on Far Eastern History" i.e. the journal that is now East Asian History. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move / merge and then Redirect I think there is encyclopedic content here and should be kept if possible, and given the current geopolitcal goings on at this time, is likely to be sought out by people looking for general information via wikipedia. As to INHERITED or not, if the centre producing the journal is not notable enough to have its own article then it cannot inherit anything, constitutive or otherwise. If the centre's broader notablility can be stablished, I would suggest that the content here be incorporated into an article about the centre, eg, the journal is one of the things it does, and this content and its references would contribute to establishing the centre's broader notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Centre does many things unrelated to the journal. It should indeed have an article, but that's not the one I chose to create. People interested in journals may or not be interested in the publisher, but it doesn't make sense to redirect notable books to the page of the press, and in the same way it won't make sense to redirect someone trying to find out the journal to a page about the Centre. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... it doesn't make sense to redirect notable books to the page of the press ... Agreed. The question here though is "is the journal notable in its own right", which I presume this AfD will decide. I was trying to suggest a way of keeping the content ... Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and thank you for trying to help, but it wouldn't make sense. Please note in Notability Guidelines: "or journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat: https://www.worldcat.org/title/papers-on-far-eastern-history/oclc/2265702&referer=brief_results; https://www.worldcat.org/title/east-asian-history/oclc/1120263121&referer=brief_results. Held by a few hundred libraries. It's what you would expect for a regionally notable history journal. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, library "holdings" are rather meaningless: the journal is open access, so many libraries will list it simply because it doesn't cost them a dime. It would be more meaningful if this were a subscription journal, because in that case it would mean that librarians made a decision to consecrate some of their (always inadequate) resources to this particular journal. But just putting a link on their website is cheap. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true for holdings of "East Asian History" but cannot be true of holdings for "Papers on Far Eastern History" since the name changed in 1990 and it has not been digitised. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the inclusion of Papers on Far Eastern History in the Bibliography of Asian Studies, which I verified by going in to check it. It's hard to show in any other way though, because EBSCO doesn't seem to keep a listing. I think the inclusion of the journal in this index may end with the name change in 1991. Anyway, I think this meets the 'selective index' concern, if for some reason one might think that Informit does not. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long list copied from Bibliography of Asian Studies

Search History/Alerts Print Search History Retrieve Searches Retrieve Alerts Save Searches / Alerts

Select / deselect all

Search ID# Search Terms Search Options Actions S1 papers on far eastern history Expanders - Apply equivalent subjects

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

View Results (219)View DetailsEdit Search Results: 1 - 50 of 219Relevance Page Options Share Result List 1. The new versus the old text controversy--K'ang Yu-wei and Chang Ping-lin in the twilight of Confucian classical learning Academic Journal

By: Sun, Warren. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 42 (Sep 1990) p.47-57 Subjects: China -- Philosophy & Religion -- Confucianism

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 2. The Green Gang and the Guomindang polity in Shanghai 1927-1937 Academic Journal

By: Martin, Brian. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 42 (Sep 1990) p.59-96 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Republic (1911-1949)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 3. ""Mohist marginalia""--addenda and corrigenda Academic Journal

By: Makeham, John. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 42 (Sep 1990) p.125-130 Subjects: China -- Philosophy & Religion

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 4. Lei Feng and the 'Lei Fengs of the eighties'--models and modelling in China Academic Journal

By: Geist, Beate. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 42 (Sep 1990) p.97-124 Subjects: China -- Politics & Government

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 5. The logic of logic--a comment on Mr. Makeham's note Academic Journal

By: Elvin, Mark. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 42 (Sep 1990) p.131-134 Subjects: China -- Philosophy & Religion

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 6. Universalistic and pluralistic views of human culture: K'ang Yu-wei and Chang Ping-Lin Academic Journal

By: Wong, Young-tsu. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 41 (Mar 1990) p.97-108 Subjects: China -- Philosophy & Religion

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 7. Hatamoto rule: a study of the Tokugawa polity as a seigneurial system Academic Journal

By: Morris, John. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 41 (Mar 1990) p.9-44 Subjects: Japan -- History -- By Period -- Tokugawa (1600-1868)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 8. May Fourth: symbol of the spirit of bring-it-here-ism for Chinese intellectuals Academic Journal

By: Lee, Mabel. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 41 (Mar 1990) p.77-96 Subjects: China -- Philosophy & Religion

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 9. The collapse of scriptural Confucianism Academic Journal

By: Elvin, Mark. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 41 (Mar 1990) p.45-76 Subjects: China -- Philosophy & Religion -- Confucianism

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 10. Problems of modern painting beyond Byzantium Academic Journal

By: Clark, John. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 41 (Mar 1990) p.109-123 Subjects: East Asia -- Arts -- Painting

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 11. Overseas Chinese and the 1911 Revolution Academic Journal

By: Yen, Ching Hwang. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 19 (Mar 1979) p.55-89 Subjects: China -- Anthropology & Sociology -- Overseas Communities

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 12. The planning of Daxingcheng, the first capital of the Sui dynasty Academic Journal

By: Xiong, Cunrui. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.37 (Mar 1988) p.43-80 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Antiquity to Ming

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 13. Re-evaluation of the naba-chen theory on the exoticism of daxingcheng, the first Sui capital Academic Journal

By: Xiong, Cunrui. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 35 (Mar 1987) p.135-166 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Antiquity to Ming

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 14. 'Grasping Revolution and Promoting Production': the cultural revolution in Chinese coal mines Academic Journal

By: Wright, Tim. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.22 (Sep 1980) p.51-92 Subjects: China -- Economics -- Industry -- Mining

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 15. The politics of agriculture in China: 1969-1976 Academic Journal

By: Woodward, Dennis. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.25 (Mar 1982) p.99-137 Subjects: China -- Politics & Government; China -- Economics -- Agriculture -- Food Policy; China -- History -- By Period -- People's Republic (1949- )

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 16. Unfought Korean wars: prelude to the Korean wars of the seventh century Academic Journal

By: Wong, Joseph. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.22 (Sep 1980) p.122-158 Subjects: Korea -- History -- By Period -- Antiquity to 1392

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 17. Role of the People's Liberation Army in the Cultural Revolution Academic Journal

By: Wilson, David C. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 3 (Mar 1971) p.27-59 Subjects: China -- Politics & Government -- Armed Forces

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 18. On state management of water conservancy in late imperial China Academic Journal

By: Will, Pierre-Etienne. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 36 (Sep 1987) p.71-92 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Ch'ing (1644-1911)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 19. Civic morality in the nationalist thought of Yun Ch'i-ho, 1881-1911 Academic Journal

By: Wells, Ken. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.28 (Sep 1983) p.107-151 Subjects: Korea -- Biography -- Yun Ch'i-ho

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 20. Between the devil and the deep: nonpolitical nationalism and 'passive collaboration' in Korea during the 1920s Academic Journal

By: Wells, Ken. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.37 (Mar 1988) p.125-148 Subjects: Korea -- History -- By Period -- Chosen (1910-1945)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 21. Lu Xun, Lim Boon Keng and Confucianism Academic Journal

By: Wang, Gungwu. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 39 (Mar 1989) p.75-92 Subjects: China -- Philosophy & Religion -- Confucianism

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 22. The Chinese Revolution and Inner Mongolia Academic Journal

By: Underdown, Michael. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 19 (Mar 1979) p.203-221 Subjects: Mongolia -- History

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 23. The Chinese Revolution and Inner Mongolia Academic Journal

By: Underdown, Michael. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 19 (Mar 1979) p.203-221 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Republic (1911-1949)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 24. Russian interest in Korea: 1857-1905 Academic Journal

By: Underdown, Michael. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.21 (Mar 1980) p.99-121 Subjects: Korea -- History -- By Period -- Yi Dynasty (1392-1910)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 25. De Wang's independent Mongolian Republic Academic Journal

By: Underdown, Michael. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 40 (Sep 1989) p.123-132 Subjects: Mongolia -- History

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 26. The manhood suffrage question in Japan after the First World War Academic Journal

By: Toriumi, Y. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.11 ( 1975) p.149-168 Subjects: Japan -- Politics & Government

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 27. Causes of the decline in China's overseas trade between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries Academic Journal

By: T'ien, Ju-k'ang. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.25 (Mar 1982) p.31-44 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Ch'ing (1644-1911); China -- History -- By Period -- Antiquity to Ming; China -- Economics -- Economic History

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 28. Progress in western technology at the Yokosuka shipbuilding works 1865-1887 Academic Journal

By: Tetsuo, Kamiki. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.37 (Mar 1988) p.105-124 Subjects: Japan -- Economics -- Economic History

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 29. The system of imperial succession during China's former Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-9 A.D.) Academic Journal

By: Tao, Tien-yi. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.18 (Sep 1978) p.171-191 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Antiquity to Ming

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 30. Status in China of Chinese British subjects from the Straits Settlements: 1844-1900 Academic Journal

By: Tang, Eddie. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 3 (Mar 1971) p.189-209 Subjects: China -- Anthropology & Sociology -- Overseas Communities

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 31. Japanese documents on Russo-Chinese negotiations of 1906 and the 1907 reorganisations of Northeastern China Academic Journal

By: Takagi, Toshio. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 19 (Mar 1979) p.237-242 Subjects: China -- History -- Sources

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 32. Chang Ping-lin and his political thought [1869-1936] Academic Journal

By: Sun, Warren. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.32 (Sep 1985) p.57-69 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Ch'ing (1644-1911); China -- Biography -- Chang Ping-lin; China -- History -- By Period -- Republic (1911-1949)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 33. The imperial marriages of the Ming dynasty Academic Journal

By: Soulliere, E. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.37 (Mar 1988) p.15-42 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Antiquity to Ming

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 34. The organisation and power base of the Kuomintang Left, 1928-31 Academic Journal

By: So, Wai-chor. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.32 (Sep 1985) p.139-164 Subjects: China -- Politics & Government -- Political Parties; China -- History -- By Period -- Republic (1911-1949)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 35. Ch'en Kung-po: A Marxist-oriented Kuomintang theoretician Academic Journal

By: So, Wai Chor. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 36 (Sep 1987) p.55-70 Subjects: China -- Politics & Government -- Political Theory

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 36. The Miao of south-west China: a question of identity Academic Journal

By: Sim, C.L. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 35 (Mar 1987) p.167-178 Subjects: China -- Anthropology & Sociology -- Ethnic Groups -- Miao

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 37. The treaty port community and Chinese foreign policy in the 1880's Academic Journal

By: Sigel, Louis T. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.11 (Mar 1975) p.79-105 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Republic (1911-1949)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 38. Ching foreign policy and the modern commercial community: T'ang Shao-yi in Korea Academic Journal

By: Sigel, Louis T. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 13 (Mar 1976) p.77-106 Subjects: Korea -- History -- By Period -- Yi Dynasty (1392-1910)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 39. Ching foreign policy and the modern commercial community: T'ang Shao-yi in Korea Academic Journal

By: Sigel, Louis T. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 13 (Mar 1976) p.77-106 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Ch'ing (1644-1911)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 40. The role of Korea in the late Qing foreign policy Academic Journal

By: Sigel, Louis. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.21 (Mar 1980) p.75-98 Subjects: Korea -- History -- By Period -- Yi Dynasty (1392-1910)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 41. The role of Korea in late Qing foreign policy Academic Journal

By: Sigel, Louis. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.21 (Mar 1980) p.75-98 Subjects: China -- Politics & Government -- International Relations -- Korea

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 42. T'ang Shao-yi in defence of Chinese sovereignty in the Northeast: the early diplomatic phase Academic Journal

By: Sigel, Louis. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 19 (Mar 1979) p.145-163 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Ch'ing (1644-1911)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 43. Revolution by diplomacy: a re-examination of the Shanghai Peace Conference of 1911 Academic Journal

By: Sigel, Louis. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) 19 (Mar 1979) p.111-143 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Republic (1911-1949)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 44. Japan's attitude towards the 1911 Revolution in China Academic Journal

By: Shum, K.K. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.21 (Mar 1980) p.123-151 Subjects: Japan -- History -- By Period -- Modern (1868-1945)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 45. Japan's attitude towards the 1911 Revolution in China Academic Journal

By: Shum, K.K. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.21 (Mar 1980) p.123-151 Subjects: China -- History -- By Period -- Republic (1911-1949)

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 46. A new interpretation of the term lieh-chuan as used in the Shih-chi Academic Journal

By: Ryckmans, P. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.5 (Mar 1972) p.135-147 Subjects: China -- History -- Historiography

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 47. Coffin-pullers' songs: the macabre in medieval China Academic Journal

By: Russell, T.C. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.27 (Mar 1983) p.99-130 Subjects: China -- Anthropology & Sociology -- Social Customs

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 48. Coffin-pullers' songs: the macabre in medieval China Academic Journal

By: Russell, T.C. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.27 (Mar 1983) p.99-130 Subjects: China -- Arts -- Music

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 49. The influence of chin-t'i shih versification on hsiao-ling poetry of the Yüan dynasty Academic Journal

By: Radtke, Kurt. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.6 (Sep 1972) p.129-140 Subjects: China -- Literature -- Poetry

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon 50. The Secret History of the Mongols: chapter twelve (= suppl. II) Academic Journal

By: Rachewiltz, Igor de. Papers on Far Eastern History (Canberra) no.31 (Mar 1985) p.21-93 Subjects: Mongolia -- History -- Sources; Mongolia -- History

Detail Only Available Add to folder External Link Icon

Weak keep - I'm prepared to give this the benefit of the doubt, it looks like there is some notability and some useable content here. At the very least the page should be userfied (per WP:ATD) rather than outright deleted to enable the creator to find more sources (if what is said about sources from the 1970s and 1980s being stronger - which is likely to be true). Deus et lex (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability per GNG or NJOURNALS. I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. This journal is not listed in any selective databases. Contrary to the contravening opinion above, these selective databases go back further than the year this journal was established. Also, this journal has been digitized all the way back to 1991 [23]. That means it has had at least 30 years during the "digital" age to garner notability.

In any case, journals were listed in selective databases before the electronic or digital age. Web of Science lists journals and articles all the way back to 1900. And Web of Science produces the Arts and Humanities Citation Index which itself has temporal coverage to 1975. Scopus has temporal coverage going back to 1788. So, if this journal was notable in its former iteration then it should be listed in selective databases under some related title. Also, having coverage in World Cat (library catalogs) does not denote notability. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This link was provided on the article's talk page [24] along with the claim this journal was notable during the 1970s and 1980s [25]. This link to Google Scholar is not evidence of notability during that period. The listed publications are issues of East Asian Studies. These are not independent coverage. And they don't discuss the journal's former iteration (Papers on Far Eastern History) in any significant detail. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the two bibliographies above, citing issues of the journal in its former iteration, or even the current iteration, does not demonstrate notability. These listings are just matters of fact. They are not independent sources providing independent significant coverage of this topic, which is needed to satisfy GNG or NJOURNALS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography of Asian Studies is published by the Association of Asian Studies which also publishes the journal under discussion here. So, the Bibliography is not independent coverage. In contrast, Arts and Humanities Citation Index or Scopus would be independent coverage. And Google Scholar is not considered a selective database and does not indicate notability. ~~What I am seeing as a significant part of this AfD, is referencing the journal back to itself or its publisher and trying to claim these sources indicate notability.~~ And they do not indicate notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment With respect, there are several errors of fact above. The Bibliography of Asian Studies is published by the Association of Asian Studies; the journal is published by the Australian National University--They are not related. Independent coverage noted in the article includes articles from the Academy of Australian Humanities, the University of Sydney, Columbia University, and numerous other scholarly journals that are not affiliated with the ANU. In what sense are these not independent coverage? As to the question of index coverage--yes, Scopus, AHCI etc. sometimes go back in history with their coverage, but they are recent indices, and so when they indicate they are timespan they are covering journals the long histories of currently prominent journals, but won't cover a journal that was prominent in 1880 or in 1970 (and certainly not one that was prominent in Mexico or Japan). A&HCI was founded in 1978, Scopus in 2004, Web of Science would seem to be mid-1990s. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Web+of+science&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWeb%20of%20science%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CWeb%20of%20science%3B%2Cc0 But on principle, why would North American or UK indices determine the notability of an Australian journal about Asia? As for Worldcat holdings, note 2c of Notability: "2.c) For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat...Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject." Let me furthermore reiterate that it is included in two selective databases: The Bibliography of Asian Studies (which is US-based) and Informit, neither of which are its publishers or otherwise institutionally linked.

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is actually not that important whether the Bibliography is independent or not. It strives to cover everything published in its field, so it is not selective in the sense of NJournals. As for the coverage in other databases, especially Scopus works hard at including journals that at one time or another were influential and covers lots of stuff that is older than when it was started. (As Steve mentioned above, it goes back to 1788). --Randykitty (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is important if it is incorrectly asserted (and deemed a reason for deletion) that "is published by the Association of Asian Studies which also publishes the journal under discussion here. So, the Bibliography is not independent coverage." As for Scopus, it remains skewed towards the recent and the Anglo-Eurocentric. Is the Revue des deux Mondes in it? Angry Penguins? The Edinburgh Review? The Young Companion? It's just nonsense to suggest that everything of note will be found in Scopus. Further, the BAS certainly does not "strives to cover everything published in its field". Yes, it is a comprehensive resource "intended for students and scholars interested in any aspect, discipline or sub-region of Asia." https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/bibliography-of-asian-studies/ which means that the professional bibliographers of Asian studies deem it useful (and notable) for the academic study of Asia. BAS does not cover the vast majority of thing "published in its field" which needless to say is overwhelmingly in Asian languages. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The publications you mention are not academic journals but magazines and fall outside of the remit of Scopus and Clarivate databases. And with its wide coverage, it's ridiculous to assert that Scopus is "Anglo-Eurocentric". --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out that Scopus doesn't have some monopoly on notability (and ER and RDM very much were important scholarly fora in their day). East Asian History is indexed where you would expect it--in Asian Studies bibliographies and Australian academic databases. As to your other comment, please show me all the journals in Lao and Khmer that Scopus indexes. For its neo-colonial impact, see: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-012-0843-1 It's also a very doubtful resource for including many non-notable and downright predatory journals--because of its prestige, it's routinely gamed: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4 Sheijiashaojun But in any event, nothing needs to be demonstrated about Scopus since both coverage and other external sources and other indices meet the criteria. (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With respect there are provable inaccuracies in the above statement that responds to my statement. "East Asian History" is a journal currently published by an NGO known as the Association of Asian Studies.[26]. It's right there according to that source I just posted. This was removed from the "East Asian History" article after I added it.

And The Bibliography of Asian Studies is also published by the Association of Asian Studies [27]. ~~This shows that this Bibliography is not independent coverage of East Asian History. The bibliography and the journal have the same publisher.~~ Also, this Bibliography is not described as a selective index as needed by Wikipedia standards [28].

I do agree it is a comprehensive database. It even describes itself as comprehensive: "The Most Comprehensive Western-language Resource for Research on Asia" [29]. Just because it ends up covering journals that cover a geographic area known as Asia, doesn't mean it is selective.

In the first line of our article: "East Asian History is a journal based at the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University." So what does that mean - based at a department at Australian National University? ~~That means nothing.~~ And there is no evidence that it is based at this department in ANU.

Please post a source here that says "East Asian History" is based at a department of ANU. By convention, we write who is the publisher of the academic journal is in our articles. To say that the journal is based somewhere is nebulous wording WP:WEASEL. ~~And removing my statement of fact about the publisher from the journal article taints the worthiness of this information on Wikipedia.~~

Additionally, no evidence has been provided that the current iteration, East Asian History, is published by ANU, as stated above. Please post a source or sources that say East Asian History is published by ANU, because there isn't a source posted in the article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does this above statement mean? Independent coverage noted in the article includes articles from the Academy of Australian Humanities, the University of Sydney, Columbia University, and numerous other scholarly journals that are not affiliated with the ANU. Can you post sources here to back up this statement? I'm not sure you understand what is meant by independent coverage. I see that you wrote "articles" not indices. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, That link goes to the Journal of Asian Studies, a completely different journal, which indeed is published by the Association for Asian Studies and has no connection to East Asian History or the ANU. I reverted the edit because it is an error. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second, several sources are given in the article to show that it is and was published by the ANU, including a submission to parliament: p. 105 here https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1940330487/view?partId=nla.obj-1949620308#page/n114/mode/1up It is also on the journal's hompeage of course: http://www.eastasianhistory.org/

Independent sources in the Wikipedia article include from *Columbia http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/ch03.htm#East%20Asian%20History It seems to me that it both demonstrates notability and, as a Columbia review of Asian studies journals, cannot be impugned as an important independent source that rates the work as high-calibre. So I quote it in full: "East Asian History [Formerly Papers on Far Eastern History, through 1991] Published by: Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra Type: Semi-annual - two volumes per year. Call no.: 1991-: DS501.E15; 1970-1990 (Papers on Far Eastern History, vols. 1-41): DS 501.A88. Library has: Papers on Far Eastern History, vol. 1 (1970) to 41 (1990); East Asian History, vol. 1 (Winter 1991) to present. Current issues on shelf. As Papers on Far Eastern History, this journal first appeared in March, 1970. Until the mid-1980s, it remained fairly low-budget in appearance. Its new incarnation, East Asian History, is fancier, with glossy paper and illustrations, higher-quality print, and footnotes printed conveniently in the margins alongside the articles. It was originally founded as a forum for the publication of papers written by the faculty and students of Australian National University, and this group has continued to represent the large majority of its contributors, although over the years there have been increasing contributions from scholars from other universities in Australia and abroad. Each volume of Papers on Far Eastern History included on its last page a short description of the contributing authors' backgrounds; East Asian History has foregone this service. Since the journal's inception, each volume has consisted of five or six academic papers, including full footnotes, and occasionally author's bibliographies as well. The countries covered have included Japan, China, Korea, and those of Southeast Asia. The heavy focus, however, is on China, and then Japan. A majority of the papers concern modern political and social history, though the magazine is certainly not limited to these areas. There are also translations from a variety of primary and scholarly texts, and numerous articles on ancient history, culture, and the arts, including literature, painting, and architecture. BOOK REVIEWS: Book Reviews do not appear.OVERALL EVALUATION: Though it gets little attention, the caliber of Australian scholarship tends to be quite high in many areas, and that appearing in this journal seems to be no exception. The first volume of East Asian History (June 1991) includes articles with such intriguing titles as "Concepts of Nature and Technology in Pre-Industrial Japan" (Tessa Morris-Suzuki) and "The Meiji Constitution: Theory and Practice" (Masuda Tomoko--trans. by A. Fraser). This journal is potentially an important source for all historians of East Asia, and should not remain "down under" in our list of consulted periodicals. INDEXES: There is no index to date of East Asian History, but a cumulative index (by author) to the entire run of Papers on Far Eastern History can be found in vol. 41 (1990)."

Some other independent sources cited:

USyd https://www.sydney.edu.au/china-studies-centre/our-research/resources.html
Monumenta Serica: Walravens, Hartmut. “In Memoriam: Igor de Rachewiltz (1929-2016).” Monumenta serica 65.2 (2017): 445–451
Journal of the American Oriental Society: Street, John C. 2006. The secret history of the mongols: A mongolian epic chronicle of the thirteenth century.

and a few other journals and books. They're all cited in references.

Sorry about confusing the names of the journals. I will have to look at the other stuff later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As to selectivity, Wikipedia doesn't define it. The bibliography certainly does select sources it deems useful and reliable for research (and exclude others as non-academic or non-reliable). I suppose what degree of 'selectivity' constitutes 'selective' is a matter of opinion. I wrote the entry because I work in the field (but not at ANU and have no affiliation with the journal) and it helps to clarify the history of Asian Studies in Australia. I think it can be useful to this admittedly small field; I don't see what's to be gained by deleting things that are notable, even if it is only regionally and to specialists. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia does define selectivity for itself such as selective databases, which I posted a link for above: [30]. The founding of Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Scopus has nothing to do with being listed in these databases. Temporal coverage matters more. But it probably means this journal did not apply to be listed in Web of Science or Scopus databases. I'm sure not every Academic journal feels the need to apply to be listed, and to see if they make the cut. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the term 'selective' is not defined, it is simply opposed to 'comprehensive.' If it means 'selected by specialists and excluding other materials' then BAS qualifies. If it means 'Not including all relevant academic materials' then both BAS and Informit qualify. If the point is 'not simply sourced (like Google Scholar) without vetting', then both qualify. Simply opposing it to 'comprehensive' is not very clear, since databases such as Scopus (which WP defines as 'selective') also call themselves 'comprehensive.' https://www.elsevier.com/en-au/solutions/scopus Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To address your earlier concern about weasel words, I have changed it to read that it is published by the ANU without reference to the Centre (where contact is listed, and where the editing at least is housed). You can check that in the front matter here. http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/44/pdfs/EAH44_Preface.pdf

Selective is defined on Wikipedia for Wikipedia. There are the selective databases to which I linked above, and Wikipedia's notability criteria are also selective. There is nothing in polices or guidelines that lends itself to the idea that "selective" is in opposition to "comprehensive". Selective should be seen or defined based on this project. The BAS has not been determined to be a selective database according to Wikipedia standards. The definition you have provided is a made up rationale - in other words it is WP:OR. Every organization has its standards or it will fall apart. Same with Wikipedia. And I have been noticing a lack of concern for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which describe and characterize our standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the WP guidelines by my lights and as I understand them. I am not trying to make up some new rationale; I am trying to interpret what WP says about selective databases/indices. From your links and Randykitty's all i see is "The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability." That gives examples but does not define selectivity, except in opposition to comprehensiveness. That binary doesn't hold. So what is the definition of selectivity according to WP? Please give it here, because I am unable to find it. In any way I can interpret 'selective' in ordinary terms, BAS and Informit are both selective. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selectivity can be seen as technical term on Wikipedia. It is not merely the dictionary definition. Selectivity reflects the view of the following databases: The Web of Science databases have a vigorous and proactive selective process that is ongoing. There are teams of editors who are specialists in their field and have deep knowledge of the journals in their area.

Web of Science has an ongoing process of selecting journals that meet their standards and weed out the ones that don't. "...24 quality criteria designed to select for editorial rigor and best practice at the journal level, and four impact criteria designed to select the most influential journals in their respective fields using citation activity as the primary indicator of impact." [31].

"Any journal that fails to meet all 24 quality criteria will be removed from the Web of Science Core Collection." [32]. Also, the Journal acceptance rate is "10-12% for the three core indices - Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index." [33] and so on. Scopus also has a rigorous selection process. It has an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). [34].

Also Scopus has been giving Web of Science a run for its money. Here is a linked paper on that - just click on the title: Zhu, J., Liu, W. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers." Scientometrics 123, 321–335 (2020). doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8. This paper at the outset says: "Web of Science and Scopus are two world-leading and competing citation databases."

I haven't had the chance to look up Chemical Abstract Services (CAS), but this is also supposed be rigorously selective. BAS and Informit do not seem to have these kind of processes. There is nothing that says they do. It would be misleading to say BAS and Informit are on par with these other databases, or have the same status on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I claimed that either is "on par", nor would that be relevant because that is not what the guidelines say. I have merely claimed that Informit and BAS are "selective", because that is a "typical" way of showing notability. Informit is "expert-curated" https://lthj.qut.edu.au/information/librarians (i.e. selective). It is also the "leading dedicated source of authoritative research from Australia, New Zealand and the Asia Pacific region" https://www.nswnet.net/vendors/rmit-publishing. BAS is the "standard bibliographic tool for Asian studies" http://www.nccjapan.org/eresources/guides/bas_guide_04-07.pdf . This was even truer in the period where this journal was most prominent, since the indexes you are citing didn't yet exist. I don't think you can assert that there is a different technical definition because none is given in the notability guidelines, and Informit and BAS demonstrably both select their sources. I do have reservations about Scopus and Web of Science for disciplinary, linguistic, and geographic bias, but they are also not relevant here (nor is the linked paper on their relative merits relevant, no one is disputing their selectivity). But even if it were really decided that these two were not selective (despite there being no definition given), this would still apply: "2.c) For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information" and WorldCat etc. can be consulted, and I have provided them. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment. I think that the case for deletion has been clearly laid out. The case for keeping, despite the production of huge walls of text, misunderstanding of WP policies, wikilawyering, and general muddying of the waters is much more shaky, although I don't envy the poor admin who'll have to wade through all that stuff. Just one final remark (although I fear that it will cause another multi-paragraph diatribe): Yes, WP determines what constitutes a reliable source and what is or is not "selective". Only if we judge that a source is reliable and establishes notability do we use it to base an article upon. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The case for deletion depends on ignoring the multiple independent reliable sources--the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Monumenta Serica, the obituary from the Australian Academy of Humanities, the specialist resource from Columbia, among others-- that have been adduced. Even if it is decided that "BAS" is not selective, Informit is, and in any event inclusion in citation is only the "most typical" was of proving C1, but it can also be shown from the independent sources. But C1 is moot if C2 is satisfied. Again, 2c: "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information" therefore other sources have been adduced. As for "general muddying" or "wikilawyering," it is only reasonable to respond to calls for deletion that one thinks erroneous or ill-founded (the largest 'wall of text' was in response to Steve Quinn's challenge above to produce sources here), and the casting of such aspersions is hardly congenial to building a collaborative Wiki community. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looking at the sources, the article seems to pass. Looking at other journals articles, they only have 2 sources (e.g History and Sociology of South Asia and Central Asian Review). So I think the article should be kept. Sahaib (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a bit dicey to look at other articles. History is indexed by Scopus, a clear meet of NJournals. I don't see any evidence of notability for the CAR, so I have [[[WP:PROD|PRODded]] it. Sahaib3005, I would appreciate if from among the many references listed in the article you could tell us which one(s) offer an in-depth discussion of this journal meeting GNG? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard for GNG is not "in-depth" but the following: " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I think the Columbia source and the China Heritage Quarterly Source would meet this, but most of the conversation here has not been around GNG but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals), which the journal in my view more clearly meets. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for Randykitty it may be of interest that East Asian History and Papers on Far Eastern History are featured in EBSCO Historical Abstract coverage as well: https://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/hah-coverage.htm. You link to the EBSCO databases yourself on your Talk page under Links/References, so I gather you think it's a selective index. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EBSCO databases are not selective in the sense of NJournals. And given your tendency for WP:IDHT this is the last time that I'll respond to you, so please don't ping me again. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to follow your own rationale, so I looked at the links you provide on your TalkPage around journals. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been hopelessly bludgeoned by the article creator, for which I've given them a slight admonishment. I invite somebody more adept at navigating atrocious walls of text (this page is at almost 60 kB) to take a look, since I'm not making too much sense of it at this point in time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies for that. I hadn't been on AdF before and only came when the article was ~~(some might say overzealously)~~ nominated for deletion, and didn't know the process or the etiquette too well. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best not to point fingers. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This has been WP:REFBOMBed to the point of making notability difficult to discern, but I think the Columbia bibliography and China Heritage Quarterly references (footnotes 5 and 11 of current version) are independent and in-depth enough to barely meet WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to renew apologies and to say that I have another dedicated (albeit short) review, at present footnote #14. For convenience: JSTOR 24628900. Also for convenience, the two mentioned by David Eppstein: http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/ch03.htm#East%20Asian%20Histor and https://chinaheritage.net/journal/remembering-igor-our-secret-history/. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Web of Science 1975-88 (as "Papers on Far Eastern History," its name at the time) As far as I can see, WoS doesn't give its historical indices without going through a uni site, but anyone with access to WoS can verify by searching that name or if with a Clarivate account perhaps by this 'query link' https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/09d45c66-f292-40af-862c-820d50359740-051076c6/relevance/1. Also listed here, which I gather is a list of all of WoK's abbreviations. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/P_abrvjt.html Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. There's an important difference between "citing works" and "cited works". The former are included in a citation index, the latter not necessarily. The list of abbreviations are "cited journals" and many of them will only come up in searches because an article published in the journal was cited by an indexed journal. As far as I can see, this journal is not included in any of the databases to which WoS/WoK gives access, nor was it ever (neither under the current name nor under the old name). Despite all the efforts above, this still fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Randykitty is correct about the list link, sorry I misunderstood it. I don't think it's correct about the Web of Science Core Collection index itself...But if you go into the actual Web of Science Core Collection, the articles are all there, 1975-88, whether they've been cited or not. Below is an example (sorry about the wall of text, but it's accessible only through login and it gives the whole record for this and all the other articles in Papers on Far Eastern History, and it looks like articles included from any other indexed journals). Please note the Journal Master list is no guide for historical inclusions because it is for those that are currently indexed, not those that have been indexed in the past https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/master-journal-list/. I encourage those with uni access to have a look through Web of Science Core Collection itself, 1975-88 for this journal is fully indexed. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:A1984AAP5200002 :

"THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS .11. + TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY By DERACHEWILTZ, I (DERACHEWILTZ, I) PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY Volume30 IssueSEP Page81-160 Published1984 Document TypeArticle Author Information Corresponding Address DERACHEWILTZ, I (corresponding author) AUSTRALIAN NATL UNIV,DEPT FAR EASTERN HIST,CANBERRA,ACT 2600,AUSTRALIA Affiliation Australian National University Categories/Classification Research AreasHistoryAsian Studies

See more data fields Journal information PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY ISSN0048-2870 Current PublisherAUSTRALIAN NAT UNIVDEPT FAR EASTERN HISTORY, CANBERRA 2600, AUSTRALIA Research AreasHistoryAsian Studies Web of Science CategoriesHistoryAsian Studies"

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Can also be verified by WOS Accession number, which are searchable, for instance WOS:A1987L181200002 https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/2c17a552-fa79-4266-a647-3387d6835ffe-051db768/relevance/1 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails verification. Note that those links only work for you, that's just the way WoS works. But I logged in and cannot see any evidence that this journal, under its current or its previous title, was ever indexed by any of the databases that WoS is the access platform for. Several articles are included because they are cited by articles in indexed journals, but that's not the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment I'm swayed by Randykitty's arguments about NJOURNALS as there's no one more familiar with that. Also, Sheijiashaojun please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your arguments, please let others (and there's no need to respond multiple times). Star Mississippi 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But for whatever reason, randykitty is mistaken, despite their acknowledged expertise on NJournals and many contributions. That's fine. But please go into Web of Science and search by accession number. e.g. A1977EF70800002 or A1977EF70800006 or A1978GL25600010. It just is indexed. If on the other hand you search for CHINOPERL which is not indexed but appears in indexed articles, you just get the kind of search hits Randykitty is talking about. So...what can I say? It's indexed for that period. Check it by going into Web of Science yourselves. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you. Not every rationale has to be explained in excruciating detail, on-demand. The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. Consensus does not require unanimity, and attempting to argue the community into submission tends to backfire. Star Mississippi 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely consensus can only be built when people present evidence and other people look at what that evidence shows? It was evidence that hadn't been presented that speaks to indexing, and no one as yet has checked the accession numbers which show it. I don't see any other way to bring it to people's attention, so...check the accession numbers in WoS. Those records clearly state "This record is from: Web of Science Core Collection Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)" Sheijiashaojun (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment: One has to look at the actual Master journal list, [[35]]--doing so, I find theat neither East Asian History or PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY is not listed. This comes about because is a paper in a listed journal (called a citing journal) might refer to a paper in this particular series. (a cited journal). The publication being referred to will necessarily be included,, because that's the nature of a Citation index.But "indexed" in the real sense means that each of the items in a publication are analyzed to see what they cite.-- that the journal is a citing DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Since I don't want to misinform, and was beginning to question wonder if I was using the Web of Science database incorrectly, I wrote the Clarivate customer service email and asked them to clarify what the situation was, and whether there was any external resource I could show demonstrating that it had been indexed. Clarivate, which owns Web of Science, wrote back:

"Thank you for contacting Clarivate.

I am consulting with my Internal team if the requested information is available for dissemination. I will update you once I have feedback from my team.

In the meantime, I have checked in my internal system and see that the journal, "Papers on Far Eastern History, ISSN: 0048-2870" was indexed in Web of Science under ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX from 1977 to 1989.

I hope this information manages to resolve your query. Please bear with us during this time.

Thank you for patience and kind understanding.

Sincerely, [name suppressed] · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · [name suppressed] Customer Service Representative, Customer Service | Clarivate Australia Toll Free 1800 312 965 | New Zealand Toll Free 0800 443 162"

I will forward the email to anyone who likes on request, or you could call the Clarivate number or the Clarivate customer support [email protected]. Or...one could search "Publication title" or the accession numbers I have given (it isn't on the Master Journal list, because that list is only for currently indexed journals). Clarivate says it was indexed for those dates, and Clarivate should know. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- as Sheijiashaojun pointed out to me, I cannot rule with any resource now available to me. out that it was covered in earlier years . I consider the response from Clarivate settles the issue--we cannot use such information in the article but we can here in deciding about it. The best way to find something we can use is from a printed set of the index for those years, if anyone still has them. But in any case:
Keep. It is clear from other information that it is a significant journal in its field, and out coverage policy for journals is very lenient. Our standard of indexing in general indexes fails to a considerable degree outside the sciences, for some of he most important publications in some fields of the humanities--especially anything published about less-studied countries and cultures are indexed only in specialized indexes, it being assumed (in pre-Wikipedia days) that nobody except specialists would be possibly interested. We have changed all that. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a search on the Web of Science Master list a few times and came up empty. The assention numbers above don't work either. Also, the JSTOR article linked above is a one paragraph mention and does not discuss the journal in any kind of depth. It is more like a notification. So, it does not meet significant coverage requirements. Also, trying to find out about the former title of this journal is probably irrelevant because we are discussing this journal. Per NJOURNALS and other SNGs, Notability is not inherited.

And I don't agree with DGG about indexing services necessarily failing journals outside of science. "Asian" related journals are listed on the Web of Science. For example there is Art of Asia, China Communications, and China Perspectives. Maybe the problem is academic journals have to actively apply and then journals must meet certain standards to be accepted for indexing on the Web of Science. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User: Steve Quinn. Thanks for your thoughts. It doesn't appear in Master Journal index, because that's only for those currently indexed. Did you select the category "accession number" in the WoS search? I'd be happy to send the Clarivate letter or the screen shots of the listings if you explain how (I gather there's no way of posting them here). It's the same journal, it just changed its name (presumably because 'Far Eastern' was going out of fashion); and at that point WoS decided it didn't meet its requirements anymore and stopped indexing, I suppose. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep -- To quote the journal website home page, it is an "international refereed journal publishing scholarly research"; that is of course not an independent source, but do we doubt it is true? History journals do not feature well in citation indices, because (1) the citation indices were initially designed for science, not the arts (2) history journals are commonly citing primary sources, rather than the work of other scholars. It is often difficult to find independent sources on Academic journals (and learned societies), because they do not get reviewed. The best test would be whether articles in the journal are being regularly cited in other works. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Peterkingiron, any journal (even predatory ones) can and will claim to be an "international refereed journal publishing scholarly research". And counting citations is very subjective (and, again, even predatory journals will get cited). So should we do away with NJournals and ignore GNG and never take an article on an academic journal to AfD again? --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is correct to say text from a journal's website is not independent. And this is because they are tooting their own horn. It is incorrect to say History journals do not fare well in citation indexes. On the contrary, Scopus lists History Journals. Clarivate produces the Arts & Humanities Citation Index which covers the History discipline. EBSCO indexes all kinds of journals. Here is a large list of history journals on Wikipedia derived from a number of indexing services and scholarly publishers. To see which services and publishers please read the intro of the article. Also, I guess the above editor is unaware that the work of other scholars are primary sources - derived from primary materials and that is original original research. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clarivate wrote again, and welcomes anyone to write their technical support if they need further information about the historical listing of this journal (as Papers on Far Eastern History) in WoS: [email protected]. User: Steve Quinn you are on record above (9 August) as saying that Arts & Humanities Citation Index is independent coverage, and that's what this journal is in (but not in the Master Journal list, which is only for current coverage). If you are unable to confirm this by using the index with the relevant search terms, or if you do not have access, than Clarivate will be happy to tell you so, or I can provide by screenshot or email forward at an address you provide. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant journal in its field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Like the previous !votes: WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSIMPORTANT... --Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps these screenshots will help: https://paste.pics/aa98b5af491bc6562d4cd15b93153a22 https://paste.pics/60be7df421774dcf6878d133ccb492d9 https://paste.pics/850a40e81eb771f06cb9d001d9abaaa6 https://paste.pics/57aa0d9d0c797ec2b03b405f788b9754. As you can see, it is indexed in Web of Science (Arts & Humanities Citation Index) from 1977 to 1989. So the nom is mistaken. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Worldcat, "Papers on Far Eastern History" is held in multiple libraries in the United States (in the midwest - University of Chicago, University of Minnesota, University of Iowa, University of Nebraska, etc.), far away from its publication location in Australia. The successor "East Asian History" appears to be equally well-distributed. This is enough for me to support a keep for this article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is a very poor quality discussion. It focuses on allegations of misconduct on other wikis which are entirely irrelevant here. Only towards the end do we have a bit of relevant discussion, but not enough for a consensus. This needs a new discussion focused strictly on the assessment of available sources in the light of WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhiar Ali[edit]

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

Custom and built in other languages at the same time. It does not have the criteria of fame. Persia ☘ 09:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: the subject of the article is highlighted/written about multiple times by notable media such as Rudaw Media Network, The New Arab, BBC Persian, VOA, Middle East Eye, Têtu, and a lot of relevant local media (check sources). The subject has ISNI and VIAF pages as well on the internet and is associated with Rasan (GA). Obviously this means the person is relevant and notable.--Épine (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest the filer of the deletion discussion reads the section when not to use the deletion process at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process. And the one above too. I can't see any reason for why the article should be deleted.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, why was the article nominated for deletion in the first place? It's already established that the subject is notable. User Persia has administrative access on the Persian wiki and deleted the article without a deletion discussion, probably COI. Misuse of SYSOP privilages as well.--Hevi (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hevi: Also read the sources before slandering. No matter how famous a person is, his article is not made in 7 projects at the same time.In many sources that have been used, the person in question has not been mentioned and in some, even his name has not been mentioned.And it is better not to play the role of a Detective in Wikipedia!. You must be held accountable for the accusation you made--Persia ☘ 15:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Persia, can you please list the sources where the subject is not mentioned as you claim? And last time I checked, there is no problem if an article is created in multiple projects at the same time so long it aligns with the local policies.
  Also, please stop threatening Wikipedia users. Your last statement constitutes as a personal attack, and such things are not tolerated in Wikipedia. Threats and intimidation do not work here. Épine (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Independently of what other people say, being an activist for LGBT in the Islamic world is dangerous, and I don't know many who live in the region, and openly propagate their views. That being said: A simple search on google for the name first turns up a zillion social media sites, before the first newspaper report on page 3 or 4 og the hits. With this in mind, and knowing that very similar articles have been posted to several wikis,I see more of a campaign. I don't say that it isn't important to also fight for acceptance of the LGBT way of life in Islamic countries. In any case: in my book, this person hasn't yet reached the level of notability required for inclusion. So delete.Eptalon (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment @Eptalon:, I think the ranking of the websites have to do with SEO of the media outlet rather than the notability of the subject you search for, also keeping in mind that there are multiple ways to search for this subject on Google, including in Central Kurdish (ژیار عەلی) or Arabic spelling of his last name (ژیار علی), so ultimately, this is not a valid reason to base notability of subjects on. Considering the heavy censorship there is in Iraq on this topic, I think a feat has been achieved by the press releases already listed in the article, which were very hard to get to.--Épine (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I live in Western Europe, and used the Latin script name, as given in the article. I am aware that there may be issues such as different transliterations, and possibly country-specific (and even personally adapted) search results. Nevertheless: 3-4 pages of essentially social media before I hit anything remotely looking like a more or less independent journal article (which only mentions him in passing) is a clear indication, and can be one piece in a puzzle for notability. Eptalon (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Eptalon, that's the tricky situation, because we cannot determine the notability of international figures by searching for it in one language only. For example, what you may have missed during your search are this, this and this for example, which all extensively feature him. And like I said, where you find the journal reports on Google does not really say anything about the notability of the subject. You can easily find a bunch of articles by clicking on the news tab on Google without having to search through the pages. Considering it is a very common name in Kurdish, it is only natural that you'd see a list of social networks popping up the first few pages. Épine (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as noted by Hevi above, I think Persia has a case of COI with the subject of this article. He has gone on a deletion campaign project wide, on Azerbaijani wiki, and on Turkish wiki, on Turkish wiki his edit was reverted by an admin because he marked the article for deletion under an invalid criteria. He also misused his admin privilages on Persian Wikipedia and deleted the article without any discussion or valid reasoning. He marked the article for speedy deletion in German wiki and used the same argument which Eptalon uses (meatpuppet?), saying it is "created across different projects at the same time", his edit was reverted as "incomprehensible reasoning". Eptalon, you support the deletion of the article because it was created across multiple projects at the same time, as you stated in German wiki, which is not a criteria for deletion. You should have waited for this discussion to have came to a conclusion before you have nominated the article for deletion in Simple Wiki or participated in the discussion in German wiki. You ignore the points I made and reinstate the same arguments you made here across different wikis. I hope you realize this is disruption.--Épine (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing to note: subjects about Kurdish figures and Kurdistan had so much COI from mainly Arab and Persian editors that ArbCom had to interfere. Articles relating to Kurds and Kurdistan are still heavily disputed in Persian Wikipedia as well. It is an important thing to discuss considering the nominator is active on fawiki and most likely Persian. Épine (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fallacy, If I previously doubted that the article was customized. According to the user, I am sure that it was made exactly to order and in several projects at the same time. What does the political situation in Iran have to do with the fact that I am the director of the Persian section? First, they accuse me of abusing access to WikiFa, which has nothing to do with this discussion, and then they accuse Iranians of having problems with the Kurds! And since they think I am an Iranian, according to this argument, I have introduced a Kurdish-speaking figure to remove.--Persia ☘ 18:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You nominating the article for deletion across many projects over a non-existent criteria proves the COI statement. Also your actions have affected other communities decision when it comes to the article, thinking about deleting the article because you placed the deletion tag across the page on many Wikis. Please stop and wait for a conclusion on enwiki first.--Épine (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know that I don't edit EnWp much anymore: When discussing a deletion, let's focus on the page up for deletion, and its merits. Who created it, and who nominated it are irrelevant. Given that this page popped up on 5 Wikis at the same time may point to paid editing (which is difficult to prove). Besides being a LBTIQ+ activist, the person is also a singer/songwriter/musical artist. So they miight use the LBTIQ+ part to attract attention to his person. Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eptalon: I always used a template on the discussion page to declare my connectivity with articles as you can see in Wild Fire (band), so please let’s not make pointless accusations. I have been on Wikipedia for years and know how it works and know the rules around declaring paid edits or work, which this is not, otherwise I would have declared it. And please stop with the conspiracy theories, you can find out with a simple Google search that he is the only openly gay LGBT+ Rights activist in the region, and the article thoroughly talks about his activism instead of his musical career.—Épine (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Épine: I am not making personal accusations, but I see that between the German and the English Wikipedia the exactly same template was used, and the text was replaced/translated. I am not against people advocating LGBT... rights, but with the tools at my disposal, I cannot see that this person reached a level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.Eptalon (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: it is on the article to show that the person meets the requirements for inclusion in this Wikipedia,so the "burden of proof" is on your side, not on the side of Wikipedia. Eptalon (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the phrases sourced by twitter, one concerning the university is still in the article and I added a better source needed tag. But the article has still many sources. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, thanks for the improvements. I wish we collectively agreed that improving the article is better than slapping a deletion tag on it for minor reasons. Épine (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you: The respective article on Simple English Wikipedia has been deleted, the archived discussion is here. -Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Providing sources here, and analyzing their substantiveness, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed in other projects--Persia ☘ 07:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
/fa.wikipedia
az.wikipedia.
de.wikipedia
simple.wikipedia
ar.wikipedia
sv.wikipedia
da.wikipedia

Please check the wikidata history And other user edits to be checked--Persia ☘ 07:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another example of creating wiki article in multiple wiki to show that person is notable, it is not the first time and is not going to be last time, date of creating and pretty much self explanatory Mardetanha (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: After having read several of the for me understandable sources, I must admit that they often mention his comment on a moment during a crackdown on LGBT activists. Others were self published or tweets. There are other sources where he is portrayed more extensively but they are mostly not prominent ones. The fact that it was Zhiar Ali who many sources chose to cite, implies that he'll probably become WP:LASTING. There is also a lawsuit against his NGO Rasan going on. I am leaning towards moving the article to draft space in order to let the article grow instead of deleting it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are no self published sources after the tweets were removed. As for the reason for the deletion on other wikis, Persia deleted the article on fawiki where they are an admin without a deletion discussion, same thing was done on arwiki even though it is a policy on both wikis. He nominated the article for deletion on all wikis under the same reason he has done here, and most followed through without further investigation except for Turkish wiki. On Swedish wiki the article is not deleted but drafted to improve the language further, simple English was nominated by Eptalon above under the same excuse Persia uses. I have previously created articles on multiple wikis at the same time, i.e. Lost Whispers (Evanescence album) and Wild Fire (band). This does not mean the subject of the articles are not notable and it is not an all a criteria for deletion. Épine (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Mardetanha is a WP:MEAT from fawiki as well.--Épine (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Épine, I respond on the self published part as I was pinged before: self-published was within the deleted text. Then I also find it interesting that someone is allowed to delete an article without discussion, but it's in another language wiki and doesn't concern the English wiki. I also can't really follow the arguments for delete, because it was created in several languages. My following comment is to be seen as an argument based on the sources I can understand. As to me Zhiar Ali will very probably become a notable subject (if he is not already). As a vegan and LGBT activist he has come to the attention to BBC and VOA in the international, Rudaw, MEE in the regional and The Vegan Review and the several LGBT focused journalists and outlets in the specialized press. But maybe we ought to give the article some time to grow to get a more prominent coverage. The big outlets often treat the same two moments, the one on his comment of the Asayish and the Rasan lawsuit. Besides his so-called journalism on Medium is more of a niche activism (3 followers) and as to me not worth a mention.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, I understand your comments, and thank you for adding them here. As for the discussion, it is part of the deletion process on both Arabic and Persian wikis, but I think there are some off-wiki activities are happening because it was clearly a coordinated deletion campaign by Persia. I oppose deleting or draftifying the article and suggest letting it grow like many other articles in the article namespace. I am trying to find better sources as well and add them to the article. We can add the {{current}} tag to it. Épine (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree with Paradise Chronicle and Épine. Ali is quoted by multiple notable sources, but has yet to receive the substantial coverage that people on the List of LGBT rights activists have and fails WP:SIGCOV. The events Ali has responded to seem to pass WP:SIGCOV, but Ali is WP:NOTJUSTYET. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CirKis[edit]

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

I have a few issues with the CirKis page, in as much as I cannot make a case for it qualifying for notability. The article gets off to a bad start by saying the product is no longer manufactured. Of course that is also true of many very notable historic products, but maybe it did not sell well.

There are two BGG reviews. But in this one (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/456565/review-cirkis) the reviwer deleted his review. In the second (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/820111/purge-47-cirkis-oh-great-abstract) the reviewer sums up his position as "Should I buy this game?: Yes if you like abstracts; no if you do not. I mean it is really that easy. This is a good abstract and if you wanted to try one this is very cheap, quick to play, and pretty good." Make of that what you will.

This video review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZRASQ0G8kk) says it "is not a bad game" but it is "tedious".

This review (http://www.geekyhobbies.com/cirkis-board-game-review-and-rules/) says "CirKis is not a terrible game but it is also not a great game."

As far as a I can work out Tom Vasel has not reviewed it.

So no glowing reviews.

Now apparently it has won some prizes. From the Awards section: "Grand Prix du Jouet 2009 on TricTrac blog / The Creative Child Award".

I will look into the "The Creative Child Award" first. That link is broken and contains no information about a year in the URL. I did manage to find something in the internet archive for the broken link: https://web.archive.org/web/20080913174832/http://www.creativechild.com/toyfinder.html So just looking around Creative Child website it seems that they do not report on who they awarded prizes to in previous years. I did however find out how I should go about getting my creations considered for a prize. https://awards.creativechild.com/enter I think we should all take heart that the fee has been reduced from $150 to a mere $75.

That trictrac blog (in translation) starts: "As every year, the professionals of the toy profession come together to elect the toy grand prizes....." Again I was not able to find an official source for the 2009 winners, the tric trac reference does confirm it for whatever that is worth. However researching the prize I was once again I was able to find out how to submit my inventions. https://grand-prix.larevuedujouet.fr/spip.php?article5 I shall face the minor obstacle that my invention will need to be on sale in France, but the fee will be a much steeper 690 euros.

If you look at the image in the page it is clear that bith prizes were in 2009. In fact that picture has the following source: "We designed the product and took the picture here at Winning Moves. This is our own work." So from this we know that the major editor of the page (Joesequino - 87% by text) is associated with the company. There is a note about this at the top of the page dating back to March 2010.

So these prizes ... do they count as "major awards"?

So the final thing is that I had a look at the page of the inventor: Philip_Orbanes. It seems rather poorly sourced so I suspect it falls short of the BLP policy so I shall put in a delete request for that. Though I rather doubt there is anything libellous in it.Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. It exists, but the reception is not there. It doesn't matter if the reviews are good or bad, but they are very niche, ditto for the awards. I don't think this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if this does not get deleted, does anybody have any proposals for how to improve it?Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the spammy external links, and found an archive for the broken one with details on the game. NemesisAT (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found a couple more reviews that don't appear to be associated with the subject: [36] [37]. However, I think the 1977 date is an error - the Winning Moves website suggests development began in 2008. Regardless, this looks like a quirky game and I feel it warrants an article on Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good catch on the year. Also if this page is going to be kept I think we need to cut the Awards section. I don't believe they can be probably verified now, and I don't think they were worth much anyway. So if the sources are considered reliable, and we have a definite plan for cutting out anything that cannot be verified, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. I would just take out any mention of winning an award. The sourcing isn't great but I feel there is just about enough, and it is an interesting topic. I'm not sure whether withdrawing the nomination is allowed however given another editor voted delete. NemesisAT (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just checked WP:AFDHOWTO and I can't withdraw unless Piotrus changes his vote. Anyway before I change mine, I would like to be totally clear. Are you offering/promising to do all the work and on what time frame? Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the two reviews found, can we get an assessment of the reliability of the websites they are posted on? Is there any evidence of editorial controls? Some websites like this are just blogs posting user submissions. If all we have to go with are two borderline niche reviews, I am afraid this still doesn't meet GNG in my book (I'd be happy to consider changing my vote if it is shown that those are not niche websites, but I am not holding my breath). PS. Fr wiki has a link to one of the awards (Grand Prix du Jouet) [38] but it seems dead and IA is 'failing to fetch' at this moment, maybe one of you will have more luck following up on that lead (and fr wiki archive link is likewise broken for me [39]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just going to remove reference to the awards. I already tried very hard to get good sources on the awards before I did the AfD. Specifically I was able to find out about the awards in general. They are both pay to be in the running awards. But they don't publish archives and the wayback machine did not archive them. Slimy asparagus (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without them, I really don't see what makes this game notable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the process for those awards? To be considered you have to pay a fee. And then they can't be bothered to keep records of previous year's winners. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the mentions of awards now. NemesisAT (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holloway Terrace, Delaware[edit]

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

This is a borderline case, and I'm hoping someone can get further material for a history. Here's the problem: it looks like a very old suburb, and the only reference I can find that spells it out describes it as "old suburb", and everything else is passing mentions, other than a short bit on the firehouse page and the fact that I can find a Baptist church there. I'd like there to be more, but at the moment it is a century-old subdivision whose residents got together and put up a fire house. I don't think that's enough. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see over 200 articles about this place on Newspaper Archive from 1916 to 1923. I've only checked a few articles, but there's history, here. Give me a couple of days to flesh this out. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources added to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs Djflem (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's a world champion lmao 50.47.83.158 (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanh Le[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under tier top promotion and not ranking world top ten in any weight classes in mma. Subject also fails GNG as info of fights are merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet any notability criteria in WP:NMMA. There's no evidence of significant independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Article appears to have been created by an SPA and is of questionable quality--"Mrs Le" for spouse and all references are to an ESPN database entry for "Cung Le" not "Thanh Le". Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham in the Catholic liturgy[edit]

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

Compared to the other subjects documented under Catholic liturgy, this seems to be excessive detail. It's kind of like an "In popular culture" section, except it's restricted to Catholic rituals. I don't think simply listing all the references to Abraham in such rituals is particularly encyclopedic, especially since in most cases Abraham is not a notable part of the ritual. All the important rituals having to do with Abraham are already covered in sufficient detail at Abraham#Christianity. -- Beland (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to JASpencer, the original version is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. This may also explain the high level of detail and some opinionated language in the current version. -- Beland (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I do not think we need a list of name-drops in the liturgy, and that's pretty much all we have. And really, the CE article, copied into our space, is essentially as it stands constructed from primary sources— out of date at that, considering it's referring to the Tridentine and not the current rite. There might be something to be gotten from a theological work that actually discusses the matter, but that's more likely a matter of typology in general, and in any event it argues for applying some WP:TNT to what we have now. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neslihan Gökdemir[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how PROF is relevant here, and this is not a GNG pass.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Freeform original films#2005. Consensus to delete, but suggested redirect makes sense for searching. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Confidential[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF, not a significant film in the career of anyone attached to the film BOVINEBOY2008 23:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found two weak references, that will not cut to pass GNG/NFILM so I think DELETE is appropriate here. Kolma8 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG/NFILM. WIKINIGHTS _talk 02:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable TV film, per all reasons above. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Freeform original films. KidAd • SPEAK 17:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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