Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 03 November 05 >

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 delete and redirect to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Given the paucity of sources and the doubt whether grandiose claims (such as 1 M students) are true, there doesn't appear to be much content worth merging, so I am deleting the article before redirecting it. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools[edit]

Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable school in India with not a single reference coming outside of the school's website, a site that mentions the school in passing, or a promotional article. Nothing really about the notability of the school. The article alleges that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded the school, but no sources prove this, except for what I found from one of the school's webpages. No news sources I could find support such a claim. The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. Counterpoints:
- Coverage I can find is a teacher accused (arrested) for sexual harassment charges 1 2 3 4 5. Still, that probably belongs on Child sexual abuse laws in India more than here.
- Book mentions in 'Cultural Enrichment of Indian Education', ISBNs 9788173411779, 8173411778, and in 'ideal india', ISBNs 9789080600515, 9080600512. They appear to only be mentions, and it's hard to untangle some of the organization of the schools.
- At least a paragraph in 'Transcendental Meditation: The Essential Teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi', originally published 1973(?), ISBNs 9781401931575, 140193157X, has at least a few paragraphs on the schools with cites or footnotes. It says 80k students, 120 cities, in 150 schools. (the Wiki article says a million students, no cite)
That's the end of my search on it. tedder (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am not sure what the ruling is re: schools since they aren't presumed notable any more, but it seems that a school system that has over 1M students should be notable? Do we need proof of that or does size not matter at all in these situations? FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The number of students doesn't mean it's notable. Harvard University has less than a million but is more notable. So the student population doesn't apply. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as an ATD. I'm fine with either, but this doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable on it's own. I think mentioning it in the article for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is worth doing though. The article already has a bunch of random bits in it about schools he is associated with and it would improve things if they were combined into their own section or something. Which the content in this article worth saving can be added to. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References appear somewhat scattershot, good points made above regarding either transcluding content in other articles that is relevant elsewhere. I am also fine with a merge or redirect , probably to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi would be most appropriate. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:40, 11 November 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 nomination withdrawn as the article has seen cleanup and referencing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Robinson[edit]

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

WP:COI biography of a politician not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just for existing, and even the claim that she was the town's first woman mayor still isn't a notability boost in the absence of reliable source coverage about her in media -- but this doesn't cite a single WP:GNG-worthy source, and I had to strip a large linkfarm of inappropriate offsite links to primary sources (photographs, the self-published websites of people or organizations named in the body text, etc.) that aren't support for notability.
This article, further, existed for 12 years as a very short stub before being expanded with a lot of unsourced and non-notability-building family trivia, in a wholly inappropriate tone and format, by her own grandchildren beginning last year, but at no point in its entire existence has the article ever cited any GNG-worthy sourcing at all.
As I don't have access to any database in which I could retrieve British media coverage from the 1950s and 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually salvage it with proper sourcing -- but in this form it requires the WP:TNT treatment, as nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from actually having to have any legitimate referencing. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 4 November 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. Consensus has tended towards a view the article should be improved instead of deleted, which has been backed up by the editing of it during the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arabeyes[edit]

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

Not a notable software project. Probably defunct, though there isn't enough coverage to know for sure. No independent sources in the article and nothing found. The previous AFD (from 2008) claimed there were sources (possibly in Arabic), but none of the links work now. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Link rot is no reason to delete. Was notable before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect, the verdict was "no consensus" before (rather than being found to be notable). MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen: I'm really interested to hear why you think the first two articles in that list of "excellent clippings" easily meets GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second-hand coverage here is marginal at best. Wikipedia is not an almanac of everything that has ever existed, and "notability is not transitive" does not mean that an article which survives a single deletion nomination is immune to future ones. @7&6=thirteen: needs better arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unix/Linux language-support projects are notable. Adequate press coverage is listed at [1], the fact that this coverage hasn't yet been integrated as article sources doesn't magically render the subject non-notable. Skyerise (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I looked through the sources in the link provided by the last keep voter. They are all either primary, extremely trivial, not even about Arabeyes, or are otherwise unusable as a way to establish notability. That's the problem with assuming things are notable based on news aggregator hits and article titles. Usually the references are trash. I urge voters to read through what's available and to share specific sources that they think meet the notability guidelines. Instead of wasting people's time linking to unusable trash like the last voter did. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per Adamant1, the sources have various issues and therefore the WP:NPRODUCT threshold is not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are more than WP:THREE: Arabian Computer News 2002, Gulf News 2003, ITP 2004, Cover story in IT-republic 2004, and Al-Riyadh 2005, for example, all of which come from the (ahem) "unusable trash" already linked above. Levivich 21:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: The only reference out of those that is usable is the first one. The others are interviews, about OpenOffice (which I'm pretty sure this isn't), and a self published PR piece. So, aside from the first references, the others are clearly trash. Or are you seriously going to argue those are quality, notability providing references? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your description of these sources is not accurate. Levivich 13:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The second article literally says "interview" at the top of it and if you look at the 5th page of Cover story in IT-republic 2004 article the first sentence says "copyright 2002, Arabeyes Project Etc. etc." So I'd love to know what's not accurate about describing those sources as an interview and a self published PR piece. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would still leave three. This argumentation you're doing right here is why you're going to end up tbanned from deletion. This is not a debate club. If you don't think the sources people put forward meet GNG, then say why, and then shut up. Skip calling them "trash", skip replying with things like "are you seriously going to argue", and skip cherrypicking two out of five as if that proves something. Levivich 06:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out and AGF. I was just trying to understand what was wrong about my description so I can better describe things next time. I don't want to call a source a self published PR piece if that's not what it is. Next time I won't ask you how something that says "interview" at the top of it isn't an interview. I'll trying not to call bad references trash if you it triggers you that much either. OK? I agree that this shouldn't necessarily be a debate and I don't want anyone's hurt feelings over the words I use to describe their non-notable references to turn it into one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the sources seem legitimate. Dream Focus 21:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe establish notability for Arabeyes please? MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two posting above me agree that at least one of the sources counts. In the previous AFD articles at https://www.linux.com/?s=Arabeyes were mentioned. https://www.linux.com/news/arabeyesorg-named-best-freeopen-project/ and the rest are enough to convince me. Dream Focus 11:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Personally I do not think they are sufficiently independent. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel the sources already shared establish notability. this reference is hosted at their own address, it appears to be a scan of a magazine and thus could be considered independent. This article also appears to be SIGCOV. Finally, the project has had regular coverage in print and online publications. NemesisAT (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article subject looked like a notable to me when I first seen it on the delsort list a few days ago. Handing some of languages with less straightforward character sets were a nightmare twenty years ago but unicode, google translate, improved OS support have made things relatively seemless. I stayed away as it was going to require work to save, and it has been with better sources and is a worthy keep. Thankyou to those who have improved the article and identified additional sources. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's been some improvements to the article since it was nominated. Although some of it is of extremely questionable quality, when combined with the 1 or 2 references that are usable I'm willing to go with a weak keep "vote." Although I can see where someone might still be able to argue for deleting the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kholmat Odilov[edit]

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

I don't know where to begin here. Someone (signing with the wrong username, weirdly) left a message on my talk page, informing me someone tagged it for speedy deletion. I took a look at the page history and it appears to me that for some reason, multiple new accounts (I don't know if they're SPs or have a COI) are all deleting and re-adding the bio speedy tag. I am not sure what's going on here. Anyhow, this article is quite poorly-written and the vast majority of its references are from user-generated pages such as Genius and YouTube, as well as Amazon and Spotify. Searching "Kholmat Odilov" in Google and going to news shows absolutely zero results, and everything else is just primary sources and sites like Soundcloud. This singer probably just isn't notable. This whole article has way too many issues and a huge cleanup is needed if it's going to be kept. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In fact I think it would qualify for speedy deletion, but it's probably better to let this discussion run its course. An unambiguous attempt to promote a completely unnotable person. I made searches on three search facilities (Google, Duckduckgo, and Privacy Wall) and in the case of Google both on a computer and on a phone, which, as is often the case, gave distinctly different results. I searched for this person using both his Russian name and the English transcription of it. There were hits which were not about this person at all, and various other hits which were totally irrelevant, such as a site which gave statistics about search terms, and a site which merely listed results of searches on Wikipedia related to Seasonal Affective Disorder. (It seems that page came up in my searches because Kholmat Odilov's pseudonym "Sád Pérson" got confused with the acronym SAD for Seasonal Affective Disorder.) Ignoring all those, and considering just hits actually about this person, I found articles about him on nine Wikipedias (English, Italian, Uzbek, Tatar, French, Azeri aka Azerbaijani, Afrikaans, Dutch, and Spanish), Wikipedia mirrors, a couple of download sites, a couple of dead links, and nothing better than that. As I said above, a completely unnotable person. JBW (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, just now I have added sources from Independent Administrative sources that cannot be edited in any way, my friend, learn to search more carefully, of course, while in the USA, you cannot find anything about this person, but look at the rest of the sources on Wikipedia, I think you will understand everything;)))--80.72.119.252 (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have no idea why you think I am in the USA. However, the essential point of your message seems to be that I considered only what I had found on searching, not what is cited in the article. I was assuming that the references in the article were already covered by WaddlesJP13's statement that "the vast majority of its references are from user-generated pages such as Genius and YouTube, as well as Amazon and Spotify”, and that I didn’t need to repeat that. However, since you have raised the matter, I will answer that point.
This is a classic case of WP:BOMBARD, i.e. the mistaken notion that notability of a subject can be established by posting dozens of references to numerous sources, without regard to the quality of those sources. At present there are 52 references in the article. I have taken a random sample of a quarter of them, and they are as follows.
(1) A dead link, (2) A listing of the participants in a concert and competition. Odilov is listed as one of a huge number of participants. He appears in the category "Solo singing 12-15 years". (3) Dutch Wikipedia. (4) Spotify. (5) Another competition, in which Odilov is again listed among many other participants. This time he received a few certificates for his performances, but did not win any event. (6) Another dead link. (7) A download site. (8) A link to a search on www.google.ru for "Kholmat Odilov Musician” (Which, incidentally, gave a total of 6 hits, including one to this English Wikipedia article and one to a redirect to it. None of the other four hits were any better as sources.) (8) Another dead link. (9) Another dead link. (10) Ukrainian Wikipedia. (11) Another download page. (12) A report on a sports competition among schools. Odilov gets one very brief single sentence mention. (13) Yet another dead link.
I have also briefly glanced at others outside that random sample, and saw nothing better.
Not a single one of those does anything whatever to suggest notability in the terms of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Not 52 references of that quality nor 252 of them can demonstrate that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. If you can point to even one reference which is better than all those, I shall be willing to reconsider the matter, but at present I have seen nothing whatever to even vaguely suggest notability in Wikipedia’s terms. JBW (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, no problem, keep a couple of links from the Administration of the city of Ryazan (you can check the site on the English version of the article about Ryazan, and in the Russian-language segment, keep the links: 1 link, 2 link, 3 link, 4 link, 5 link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.119.252 (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If stuff like this counted toward notability, I could have a Wikipedia article. WP:SIGCOV is what's needed, and these links are the opposite of it. AngryHarpy‍talk 12:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • so, the sources confirm the identity, since the artist got there, besides there is the official website of the Ryazan Administration, check all the sources, then help to add more sources, and correct the errors in the article, I will be very grateful)--176.59.47.3 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely non-notable, I've seen some terrible articles via checking contributions of those reported to UAA, this is in a similar state to articles I have seen there, all of which were speedied. Official website does not count towards notability "the sources confirm the identity, since the artist got there" that's not what the issue is, the issue is notability which the sources fail at demonstrating. If it were up to me I would delete and salt. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For some reason this article appeared on the cricket new articles list, which sparked my interest and I originally nominated it for speedy deletion as I too came to the same conclusion with the sources, none of the sources I checked established subject notability and appeared to be added en-masse to try and make the subject appear referenced and hence notable. StickyWicket (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing any sources that qualify towards WP:SIGCOV. Looks like some sort of inept promotional campaign. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 10 November 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 22:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul DelPonte[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows me sponsored posts and unreliable sources see this, this, this and other unreliable sources. This is a WP:BIO fail. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of books related to Buddhism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of books related to Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is not encyclopedic. The number of books on Buddhism is extremely large; this list is extremely short. This makes it look like these are Wikipedia book recommendations. We have list(s) of books related to Buddhism on every article on Buddhism. They are called References and Further reading and thus they are topical. This list is just a catchall for whatever the creators and editors of the list wish to promote. It thus fails WP:PROMO. Skyerise (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I wrote a far-too-long comment on the Page's Talk page, but one of my core concerns was that this list has, over the years, drawn extraordinarily little engagement. My comment was the first in eight years on the Talk page. For much of the list's many years in existence it only had two or three items. People often respond to proposals to delete with suggestions for how a page could be made better, but I think that the history since the last deletion proposal suggests that there's very little reason to think that this page will get better. Not one of the people who supported keeping the page when it was listed for deletion eight years ago subsequently added to the list or maintained it in any way. It's not going to get better, because:
  2. Aside from the various MoS reasons that this is a problematic page as currently constructed, I think that one of the key principles that we should be thinking about for any page in Wikipedia is how readers might find it or use it. I can't think of a useful purpose for a page like this other than for a reader who wanted to find books that gave them very basic info on Buddhism. But a better place for that would be—as the nominator suggested—by the further references list on Buddhism. If there were many lists of Buddhist books of different kinds (List of Theravada ethics manuals, List of textbooks on Abhidhamma, List of books on Tibetan Buddhist history…) then this would be a good spot for a list of lists, but that's not the situation we have. Pathawi (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like others per WP:SALAT. This is list has a far too broad scope especially as one of the world's oldest and largest still practiced religions. The Buddhist texts article already provides a place for this kind of content if need be. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SALAT: too broad. JimRenge (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current version of the article. If someone wants to recreate it just listing books in the category Category:Buddhism studies books, that is books with their own articles and which clearly state they are about Buddhism in their lead, then that would be a valid list. Some entries on this current list were added by single purpose accounts, most likely to advertise. Dream Focus 01:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely a TNT delete. It should be possible to make a list article of high-quality secondary sources about Buddhism, but this isn't it. The version [2] from 2013 was better but still suffered from stealth promotion and arbitrary choices. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:02, 6 November 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 23:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political psychological rationalization[edit]

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

"Political psychological rationalization" is not a concept. It is not a thing. The entire article is an WP:OR essay that cobbles together all kinds of tangential topics to argue that "Political psychological rationalization" is a thing. But just google "Political psychological rationalization". It is not a thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity Magazine[edit]

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

No references since its creation. A search on google didn't reveal much, except for similarly named magazines and Wikipedia mirrors. Isabelle 🔔 20:54, 4 November 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tailenders (podcast)[edit]

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

Much as I love the podcast there isn't sourcing for a standalone article. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benemerito Cuerpo de Bomberos de Masaya[edit]

Benemerito Cuerpo de Bomberos de Masaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. The article is unreferenced and so is the Spanish Wikipedia version. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin A5[edit]

Vitamin A5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough independent reliable sources mention Vitamin A5, it is almost unheard of apart from the same group of researchers who have published on it. On the article are 10 references, of these 10 the author Rühl R appears in 9. This is some kind of conflict of interest. An experienced user has also raised these concerns at the conflict of interest board [3]. We must assume good faith but the user who created this article only appears to be using Wikipedia to promote papers written by Rühl R. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After raising a critique on the vitamin A5 talk page, and using WP:PROD, I supported deletion of this article on 26 Oct, but PROD was reverted by the article creator (Wham2019, who claims to be a "new" editor, but began editing in April 2019) without adequate responses to concerns about 1) use only of primary research at the lowest quality of evidence for biological mechanisms, WP:SCIASSESS and WP:MEDASSESS, 2) sources mainly from one research group (within which Wham2019 appears to be a member, indicating an undisclosed WP:COI), 3) content based only on speculation, making it an untested concept that has no notability in vitamin A science, WP:N, 4) absence of rigorous independent review(s) acknowledging the existence of vitamin A2-5 subtypes, and 5) exaggerated unproven claims of biological activity and anti-disease effects, reverted in this edit. The concept of vitamin A subtypes has been strongly advocated by Wham2019 on the vitamin A talk page, but was resisted by an experienced medical editor, and no supportive contributions about subtypes have appeared in the vitamin A article. More primary research was added to the vitamin A5 article today by Wham2019, apparently triggering this deletion proposal and renewing the COI concerns. The vitamin A5 concept and article appear to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for establishing credibility and verification of an idea not adopted by the vitamin A research community. The article should be deleted (as should vitamin A2 for the same reasons). Zefr (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A dozen references all from the same people is a red flag. It’s a sign of either an unconventional view that hasn’t gained any traction, or of dubious selection of sources by the current article’s editors. Or, as may well be the case here, both. If the topic has merit, other groups will get interested and more diverse support for the idea will emerge. And I hope to be right when I say that the article here is not the best way to get exposure in the relevant circles. Karl Oblique (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This smells of WP:NOR by proxy with some WP:COI. The compounds exist, but the name and seeming importance of them has not been demonstrated and would not be regarded because of it. Other reasonings stated by others also addresses additional concerns. --Tautomers(T C) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Need reliable secondary resources that confirm that "A5" is an accepted term. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete When you do a before search, even in academic archives its the Ruhl, Krężel names that keep coming up in the results. A single group means NPOV and that is a worry. When I looked at it originally, planning to review it, I couldn't determine if it genuine. It looked suspect but there is no reall guidance on it. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 7 November 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smyer Independent School District[edit]

Smyer Independent School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. All the sources I found on Google appear to simply provide information for someone wishing to attend school in the school district. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. School districts are government entities and are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain: I would assume you'll continue to improve the article? In any case I"m just going to let this play out. I only nominated it because after attempting to find sources for it, I only found sources that would provide information for a parent wishing to have their child attend school in the district. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . I believe school districts are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with Blaze The Wolf that school districts have inherent notability, and for non-notable school articles our go-to decision is often to redirect to the district's article. I've added text and citations to the few Smyer Independent School District articles on newspapers.com. (I suspect that there must be more news articles, but apparently for smaller circulation papers, newspapers.com apparently only indexes Sunday papers, so historical news on weekdays is not online.) At any rate, it now meets WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't actually the one that said it has inherent notability. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies! Of course I meant to ping Scorpions13256, but many a slip 'twixt cup and lip... — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, when you see a newspaper only indexed weekly, it only published weekly. I've run across papers that only published on Thursday, for instance. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So, Sammi Brie a sidebar: Yes, some publications publish only weekly, but the History of Avalanch-Journal indicates in 1922 the Lubbock Avalanche began publishing "daily (except Mondays)". Following a 1926 sale it merged with its rival, the Daily Journal to become the Avalanche-Journal. That publication '"flourished even during the Great Depression". I suspect, though, that newspapers.com probably had an incomplete set of Avalanche-Journal newsprint to index, as February 1934 has only one Sunday indexed, and 1935 is missing April and December entirely. Before we had online services, libraries subscribed to periodicals and routinely sent them for binding, most periodicals once yearly, but for newsprint the binding schedule was usually once monthly. When microfilm, microfiche, and online technologies became available, the archives of newsprint were the sources for these new technologies, which had better indexing, took less storage space, and were less susceptible to damage and pilferage. But if those newsprint sources were incomplete, the online versions derived from them are necessarily incomplete. That's what appears to have happened with several years of the Avalanche-Journal. So rather than implying a choice by newspapers.com to index only monthly, I should have said it was likely a case of indexing the available (incomplete) sources.
  • Keep I'm not sure I agree that school districts are inherently notable. That said, articles related to them are good places to redirect non-notable articles about schools and this case some references have been added since the nomination. So I think it's worth keeping. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 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 23:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Leipold[edit]

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

Fails sigcov and wp:bio. Previously deleted under a different name. References are primary. No coverage. Created by a UPE. scope_creepTalk 16:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep see WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Has been significantly covered by Forbes Mexico, GQ Mexico and Excélsior TV. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out !vote from a blocked sock master . Celestina007 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note for whomever is deciding whether or not to delete: Ugochukwu75 has admitted to being a paid editor AND to operating sockpuppet accounts. Of course, they only admitted this AFTER they were blocked for doing those things. They denied it previously. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The forbes reference, is his own work, the Mexico reference is an interview. I don't see the Excélsior TV ref, but what I do see is social media, blog posts, primary sources, his own writing used for sources, company site front pages. There is not 1 secondary source amongst the lot of them. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You indeed have a point. I had no idea that the Forbes articles were written by the subject. Sorry, my bad. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: The links numbered; [[4]], [[5]], [[6]] and [[7]] are not primary links. Can you have a look at those please? Thanks Ugochukwu75 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#1 is a primary source. #2 is just a massive list of alumni where his name appears as one of thousands. #3 doesn't exist. #4 is another list, albeit a shorter one, of the nominees for some non-notable award. None of them carry any significance. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are WP:PRIMARY/paid publicity pieces.KH-1 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only are the sources paid publicity pieces, but this follows the same pattern as another article that Ugochukwu75 was heavily involved in - the article for Donavon Warren (which has been deleted) also had a bunch of paid publicity sources. Seems pretty clear that this one should be deleted per the same rationale. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of the Forbes articles are his own work and some other not. In my mind by [8], [9], [10], alongside with other sources in article we can see significant coverages that demonstrate his notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very suspicious logic being used here, especially considering the paid editing of Ugochukwu75 above. #5 is a piece without a credited author from a non-notable website, and it reads very much like a self-written promotional publicity piece. #6 and #7 are both Forbes "contributor" pieces, which I have learned is not be trusted as a reliable source, per this guideline. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref 7. It states Stefan Leipold also recommends that investors and entrepreneurs should increasingly outsource IT security issues, as in-house knowledge is very limited. with an image of Leipold would suggest it is not independent. He is being paid to offer advice as a consultant to the company. Ref 8 is an interview. Reference 9 is the profile intro to the story in reference 8 and is inconsequential really. Reference 8 is quite WP:PUFF. Both of the paid publicity by turns. There is no secondary sources here. More the type of adivice, i.e. your low-brow fare that designed more to highlight him, that to actually offer real advice. It is the equivalent of saying you should put petrol in your car if you want to drive it somehwere None of these 3 duds are secondary sources. scope_creepTalk 12:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — lack of in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, the damage done by previous creators, with wrong information, poor ethics and work, can this be fixed. the updated page is on everybodywiki, with links from intl. media etc. Thank you I appreciate the help and good explanations. thanks again Prosysco (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate Fridays collection[edit]

I Hate Fridays collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination also includes:

These articles are about a children's book series and one particular entry of the series, respectively. Its writer and illustrator both lack Wikipedia entries and don't seem particularly notable. I can't find any significant coverage of the series, or of any specific entries, online, so it seems that WP:NBOOK is not met. Both articles are completely unsourced and consist almost entirely of plot/character descriptions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 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 Plimpton 322. There is clear consensus that a stand-alone article is not justified, but disagreement exists about the merits of a merge. I am therefore redirecting this to Plimpton 322: Article content is still available from the history and further discussion about merging some material can be done on that article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Si.427[edit]

Si.427 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Old Babylonian artifact whose only claim to notability stems from a press release about an academic publication by Daniel Mansfield and the ensuing media coverage. Unfortunately, the press coverage was sensationalistic, full of errors, and and almost devoid of comment from domain experts, leaving little in the way of reliable sources from which to craft an article. Apart from two critical tweets and one quote from a Dutch article, there has been no engagement by the scholarly community with the work. This leaves the original academic paper, but to discern what the paper is claiming and to disentangle that from the erroneous claims attributed to it by the press would require considerable original research, rendering it unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. (The modest attempts made in this direction by a number of editors over the past few months have not converged.) Mansfield's claim that the artifact represents the oldest example of applied geometry, which would confer notability, is not taken seriously by any established experts. Will Orrick (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Plimpton 322 per the no consensus discussion here. Mansfield's paper discussing Si.427 is entitled "Plimpton 322: A Study of Rectangles" so Plimpton 322 is where this material logically belongs.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge. I agree with the nominator about the lack of multiple in-depth reliable independent works about this topic. Even if we consider Mansfield's work as reliable (and clearly in-depth), the media coverage of it is purely based on his institution's press releases and therefore not independent of it. And we have insufficient balancing coverage with in-depth input from other scholars to make a properly WP:NPOV article, witness the edit wars on the article. The merge proposal above is just a backdoor attempt at retaining this bad material elsewhere and should be rejected, as it already was rejected in a more proper merge discussion at Talk:Plimpton 322 (as have many earlier discussions aimed at pushing Mansfield and Wildberger's promotionalism into the Plimpton 322 article). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every academic publication needs to have its own article here, and once you strip away the churnalism, that's about all that's left. Merging "per" a discussion in which everyone but the proposer opposed the merge to some extent just doesn't make sense. (Specifically, one editor wrote Strong oppose and speedy close in bold, a second wrote the explanation for this merge does not make sense, and a third wrote, I see no reason for the proposed merge in the above other than that some previous discussions failed. I'd hardly call that a "no consensus".) I'd be sympathetic to the idea that this article at least gets a less sensationalist view on the topic into the public eye, but even so, there just doesn't appear to be enough documentation to warrant a stand-alone page. Nor is the existing content so amazing that it needs to be preserved by a merge. The paucity of serious academic discussion leads me to doubt that said content would be due in any other article, even if it were rewritten from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability in the Early Work section, or in the Controversy section, which is all primary sources. I would argue that the Guardian and Smithsonian Magazine should count as independent sources (as opposed to the press release), but if the claims there aren't supported by the academic community, it's equal parts undue weight and lack of significant reliable independent secondary sources. Danstronger (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the situation is even worse than that. Neither the Smithsonian nor the Guardian stories had even the token quote from an expert "who was not involved in the research". They're functionally indistinguishable from recycled press releases. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge I agree with User:XOR'easter Doug Weller talk 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This article is about an object that is probably not independently notable. The issue that may be notable is that it (allegedly) displayed Pythagorean triads a couple of millennia before Pythagoras. Even if the academic is wrong, the claim is notable and would justify the existence of an article. We cannot know whether the Babylonians knew Pythagoras' theorem and its proof, but it is more likely that they had empirically worked out a few triads that provided a right angle. The content of academic articles in peer-reviewed journals is a reliable source, even if others disagree with it. The question of whether journalists subsequently took up the story is neither here nor there, as it is likely to be at the level of "just fancy that". It is not primary research or OR, because it will be based on primary sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, you have been suckered by the hype. The idea that the people of that time and place knew of the principle behind the Pythagorean theorem was already well-established long before this hype-storm. See Robson "Three Old Babylonian Methods...". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive discussion not focused on the AfD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • Neither civility, nor verifiability are obstacles. Some people just can not stop discussing their colleague. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I agree, you are being uncivil by accusing me here of inaccuracy and unverifiability, when in fact my wording "people of that time and place knew of the principle behind the Pythagorean theorem" was specifically chosen to be almost exactly what Robson wrote in the paper I cited: "work on mathematical texts from the Old Babylonian period has shown that the principle behind Pythagoras' Theorem was known and used from at least the early second millenium BC in southern Mesopotamia". Unverifiability my ass. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Facepalm Any diffs for my misbehaviour? In the following talk discussion David Eppstein was requested to provide a quote for his edit and failed to do so. David Eppstein, who added the content initially noted I can't find that claim in Mansfield's paper itself[failed verification] here and later the editor brought a press release document and said the disputed content is strongly implied exactly what I said here. David Eppstein refused to address the concerns, suggesting removing the page instead, and removed failed verification template. The editor is an extremely respected administrator with hugely positive contribution to Wikipedia. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you going to address the deletion discussion or are you just here to make wild and off-topic accusations on other editors based on their refusal to engage with your previous wild accusations? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am just commenting on Unverifiability my ass., providing diffs. Do you deny you've added unverifiable content or the fact you have been uncivil towards other editors? A little bit of tact will go a long way towards a productive discussion. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe in the unnecessary deletion of significant information, thus the merge suggestion which does not mean that all of the material in the Si.427 article needs to be merged but at a minimum mention of the scholarly paper ought to be. Mansfield's peer reviewed paper is not his first on the subject matter (Plimpton 322) and qualifies him as an expert in this area in his own right independently of any third party. The references to Si.427 in said paper are minor, there isn't even a section heading for it. On a close examination, no criticism of the actual paper exists, the objections are to the secondary sourcing misrepresentations of the paper that appear to have originated with Mansfield's employer, UNSW, rather than Mansfield himself. Much ado about very little as far as I can see.Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several high quality sources on Si.427:
  1. Scheil, Vincent (1895)
  2. Scheil, Vincent (1902)
  3. Veenhof, K. (1973) - this one, for instance, has about a page of content about Si.427, providing translating the non-mathematical content of the tablet.
  4. KIJK/Laurie Underwater 2021 - quotes an assyriologist Mathieu Ossendrijver
I am personally do not follow the logic dictating that all content about Si.427 should be exterminated and can not be mentioned in any Wikipedia page. Per WP:GNG: If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The logic, as I see it, is that the noise that has been made about this overwhelms the valid information by a factor of 10000 to 1. If this were an important tablet we might just have to buckle down and fight what would undoubtedly be an ongoing years-long battle to keep the falsehoods out of Wikipedia. But since it doesn't seem to be that important, at least in the eye of the professionals who have commented, it would save valuable editor time not to have an article at all.
Also, it would be odd to have an article based just your first three sources, omitting the Mansfield paper that drew all the attention. But to include Mansfield, we would need an editor who has studied the paper in sufficient depth to be able to be able to summarize its claims without falling prey to all the misrepresentations in the press. With the possible exception of one IP editor, I don't see that any of the contributors to the page so far have done that. (I know I haven't.) It might also be hard to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I also think it may be too soon to have an article, as the community of professional historians has not yet seriously weighed in (and may never do so). There are many published claims floating around about early uses of Pythagorean triples (in van der Waerden's books, for example), which we have not seen fit to include in Wikipedia, either because the claim never gained traction in the broader scholarly community, or became discredited as standards of scholarship improved. Will Orrick (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Infinity Knight on this claim. The argument against seems rather convoluted to me, why does the fact that coverage has been mostly "noise" count as a factor against rather than for WP:Notability, can anyone point to an official policy to that effect? Most of the good content potential here is precisely clarifying the press coverage (controversy section) and having a good wiki article to dispel any misinformation would be helpful to outsiders. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Wikipedia editors would have to take it upon themselves to debunk the misinformation, since no reliable outside source has done so. I think this would violate policies against original research. This leaves us in a difficult position: either we uncritically repeat material published in newspapers and magazines that we know to be false, or we violate WP:OR. One alternative is to write a bare bones factual article leaving out the controversy entirely. But what's left isn't that notable and it's a near certainty that people would keep trying to reinsert the controversial material anyway. Another is to delete the article entirely, the path I favor. Not every media storm is worth an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG does say that press releases are not independent of the subject. Since almost all of the media articles relied on the press release and did not perform their own research (say by consulting other experts) I'd say this applies here. Also WP:NOTNEWS talks about "enduring notability". Until other scholarly sources pick up on this, I'd say we don't have that here. Will Orrick (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are arguing merge not keep.Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Will Orrick: Understood, thanks for clarifying your point of view. Right, I favor merging, but would also be happy with keep (though it seems I'm in the strong minority there). Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very selective merge or redirect to Sippar. I fully agree that this is a POV fork and that the individual artefact isn't notable. The 'controversy' section is particularly silly, trying to spin an everyday event like "scholar writes bad paper outside his field; lazy journalists uncritically repeat its claims" into something worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. That said, I think the title is a plausible search term and there is some decent material in the article. If nothing else, the photos are nice. Sippur is the site where the artefact was find and is a more natural redirect target than Plimpton 322, an apparently unrelated object. – Joe (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable thing about the tablet I can see is that the fields are actual rectangles, not generic quadrilaterals, which is seems to be the key fact at the core of Mansfield's claims about Pythagoras. This seems to me to be something that is really about the human geography of Sippar, rather than the development of Babylonian mathematics. I agree that the controversy section is really a fig leaf for the fact the rest of the article is really information about an otherwise relatively unremarkable object, and there is far too much space given to the controversy (imagine if there was a WP page on every object that generated a disagreement due to weak scholarship in archaeology!). I agree that Plimpton 322 is not a good place to put this material, and photos of Si.427 would fit at Sippar#Gallery; one might even make the case that an aside about the rare "exact" rectangular fields could be slipped into Sippar#Archaeology, if given a little context. 115.64.100.121 (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Plimpton 322 and include a selected note in Sippar. IMO the article content contains WP:Notable information, with a few good citations, that would be a loss to entirely get rid of. I don't know why news/press coverage is being completely discounted here, from an outsider perspective that makes the article more notable than if there were only a few academic papers about it. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems especially illogical to me to put information about Si.427 at Plimpton 322. The fact that journalists reported exaggerated information about an artifact that was published in a paper primarily about Plimpton 322 would be incredibly tangential to the topic of Plimpton 322. I still don't think information about Si.427 should be anywhere on wikipedia, but if it is it should be at Sippar#archeology. Danstronger (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is some confusion about this. The hoohah over Si.427 is the result of secondary source churnalism about a paper entitled " "Plimpton 322: A Study of Rectangles" which is mainly a discussion of Plimpton 322 but it includes a novel and not generally accepted theory about it supported by reference to the otherwise not very notable Si.427. That's how the two things are linked. The paper itself is primary source for the new theory but the author may be considered as expert having written about Plimpton 322 previously so his opinion cannot be simply dismissed as that of a crank and no actual criticism of the paper itself exists only of the secondary source hype around Si.427. So the paper itself ought to go to Plimpton 322 because that's what its about and the Si.427 archaeology to Sippar or wherever. The only real issue here is whether in a merge to include any reference to the quite minor "controversy" at Plimpton 322.Selfstudier (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's actually quite a bit more complicated than that. At present our Si.427 article contains nothing about any new theory of Plimpton 322, and much of what it does contain has no relevance to Plimpton 322, so I don't think it makes sense to talk about a merge. What the merge suggestion is really asking is for some generous-with-their-time editor to create brand new content about Plimpton 322 and add that content to the Plimpton 322 article. Any discussion of such an addition must take place at the Plimpton 322 talk page, not here. (Warning: there will be controversy.)
As for merging some of the existing material into Sippar, I have no expertise there, so I can't comment on whether that would be warranted. But we do want to maintain WP:PROPORTION in that article. For example, I wouldn't guess that Si.427 deserves more space than the Babylonian Map of the World or the early version of the Epic of Gilgamesh found on a tablet at Sippar.
I also don't agree that the controversy is primarily about bad reporting on Mansfield's 2021 Foundations of Science paper on Plimpton 322. Mansfield published another paper in 2020 entirely devoted to Si.427 in Journal of Cuneiform Studies. It is true that the press release and media coverage were occasioned by the publication of the 2021 paper, but much of the content of the UNSW press release and of Mansfield's statements to the press was focused on Si.427 and relates to the 2020 paper, a paper that mentions Plimpton 322 only in passing and contains no new theory about it.
As far as can tell, the new theory that does appear in the 2021 paper is concerned with the arithmetic and computational properties of two of the columns of Plimpton 322. Among existing theories, it seems closest in spirit to Friberg's factor reduced core ideas, but appears to be less predictive. The new theory is presented very briefly and takes up just a paragraph or so in the paper, which is mostly devoted to a literature review at the non-specialist level. The connection with applied geometry and Si.427 is even more brief, taking up at most a sentence or two, and is presented with a lot of hedging, clearly marking the connection as speculative, with no hard evidence to support it. Yet somehow in the press release and interviews with Mansfield, this is portrayed as a firm discovery rather than a speculation, and Si.427 is said to indicate new heights of sophistication in Old Babylonian mathematics, as if numerous more sophisticated artifacts haven't been studied for decades. Although the journalists who reported on this story made some mistakes, I don't think they can be blamed for these misrepresentations.
In summary, Mansfield has a new, rather technical, arithmetic theory about Plimpton 322 about which there is presently no content on Wikipedia and which may be too marginal and too un-vetted for inclusion. At the same time, grandiose claims about the geometric significance of Si.427 were splashed all over the press, but appear to be greatly exaggerated. I don't see how merging the existing Si.427 content into any other existing Wikipedia article helps with any of this. Will Orrick (talk) 17:45, 11 November 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 11:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Wosgrau Filho[edit]

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

Bio of a recently deceased mayor of the 76th largest city in Brazil. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 4 November 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 due to low participation. No prejudice to a re-nomination to see if a future discussion can attract more participants and form a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Business Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and means of its creation is highly suspicious MaskedSinger (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - taking issue with the way an article was created 10 years ago is probably not a particularly helpful deletion rationale. St★lwart111 05:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The lamentable edit history of this article is no reason to delete an article about an organization that is regularly covered in the ethnic media in Australia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it @Stalwart111:? This page and the page of the awards' creator, Joseph Assaf appear as though they were edited by sock puppets and/or those with undeclared COI. The editor commenting to keep was also so passionate about referencing these awards on someone else's page. WP:DUCK MaskedSinger (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MaskedSinger: You need to be more careful with your phrasing. I wasn't "passionate", just objecting to unfounded removal of sourced content. I expect a retraction of your "DUCK" smear. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: I can only comment on the facts in front of me. There was a back and forth whether or not something belonged on a person's page. Instead of raising a discussion on the talk page or on a noticeboard you continually added the content back. I have to admit, when I flagged the page for deletion, I was wondering how you would respond and you commented to keep. So now there's been two cases when content pertaining to the Ethnic Business Awards has been flagged and both times you've come out in defense of the content staying on Wikipedia. At best, this is highly dubious. If you have an undeclared COI, best to come out and say it now. As for me, I honestly couldn't care one way or another whether the page stays here or not. If it stays, it should significantly be improved. In its current shape, it has no place here. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(This is getting way off-topic here.) No, I didn't have to raise the restoration of sourced material on the article's talk page; the anonymous editors who removed it had to. WP:V and WP:BURDEN work both ways. Your continued slurs are affronting. Your stance seems contradictory: "couldn't care" vs AfD? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize @Michael Bednarek: if I upset you. I apologize if I offended you. All I want is the best for Wikipedia. I did AFd so the page would be improved or removed. Staying as it is in its current form isn't an option. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we have WP:BEFORE and why problems that can be resolved by editing, should be. If the article needs work, work on the article. If you don't believe the article meets WP:GNG, it would be helpful to explain why you believe that to be the case. But the genesis of the article, decade-old possible involvement by WP:SPAs or sock-puppets, and the current quality of the article aren't really reasons for deletion. St★lwart111 12:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North to Amaroqvik[edit]

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

Non-notable book by non-notable author, fails WP:NBOOK. I have not been able to find any significant coverage online. Article consists of plot only. Lennart97 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are way too many maintenance tags that have existed on this article since as early as 2013, but they cannot be resolved since there's been no WP:SIGCOV in those 8 years. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no GNG-qualifying coverage; no sign of meeting any of the WP:NBOOK criteria; no plausible redirect target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 5 November 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 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairlane (Artist)[edit]

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

Non notable musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him and doesn’t seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO. A before search turns up nothing of substance even a before search under there real name turns up nothing as well. Celestina007 (talk) 14:22, 4 November 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 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarannum Yogesh Dobriyal[edit]

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

Spam, WP:NAUTHOR failure JohnnyHunt (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- I searched and she seems to be notable because I saw that she appeared in a few TV interviews as well and she has also wrote a book. So we can keep the article in main space if the article is improved with more sources. I think the editor can/should also improve the content of the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment She is not just a business person and she's done more than just one thing. Maybe the wordings/text was not organized properly which created impression that it's a page for just a business person. I have added 3 more references (1 2 3), in the process of adding more sources and I am also working on improving the overall content. I also found some coverage in Gujrati news which I'll add to the article after reviewing carefully.
    • BTW I don't know if this is the right place or not but I saw a bit strange pattern of the nominator "JohnnyHunt". The account is created just 3 days ago, has done only 9 edits and all of them are related to nominating my articles for AFD or tagging them as spam. It can't be a coincidence and a bit concerning. Thanks Billyatthewheels (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only keep vote is sock of creator. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 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 13:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowslayers[edit]

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

Non-notable novel by apparently non-notable author. I've been unable to find any significant coverage of the book or its author online. Completely unsourced, 100% original research ever since its creation by an SPA in 2006. Lennart97 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Banghard[edit]

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

I am unsure the coverage is that great. She appears to mainly be famous for one appearance on big brother, notability that does not make. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - The last AfD suggested that she seems to have been a favourite of The Sun's soft-porn coverage about a decade ago. Was that because of herb BB appearance or was there more to it? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsure why that is relevant, by inference if she is a page 3 girl the sun is not an RS for her, as they are her employers. As far as I can tell apart from being a page 3 girl (and winning the Suns competition to be one, not (as far as I am aware) a major award) she was not a winner of a celebrity big brother contest. None of which (as far as I know) makes here notable.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps if there can be more RS found for her, this article needn't be deleted.Chantern15 (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
    There's news of her here, I'll let fellow editors decide how much of this is tabloid or not, and whether or not worthy of inclusion.[1]Chantern15 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
  • Most of the results of the raw Google dump are junk sources like WP:DAILYMAIL, The Mirror. The coverage from The Independent is all about the subject's eviction from Celebrity Big Brother, including her comments while focusing on the show. Most other hits are also about the eviction. Very thin on substance. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was what I found, she was notable for being evicted from CBB, which in is one event. The rest all seems to be junk sources, she just does not seem all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Lacey+Banghard%22&tbm=nws&ei=9TiEYdrVEM399QO7uqWABQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiapPLwvP_zAhXNfn0KHTtdCVA4ChDy0wN6BAgBEDs&biw=1488&bih=754&dpr=1.25
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 5 November 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 14:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury North Football Club[edit]

Salisbury North Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local suburban football team that plays against other weekend/amateur teams. No independent reliable sources. The Devaney book, is by something called 'Full Points Publication, which has a website [https://fullpointspublications.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/about-full-points-publications/ but the website indicates that this 'publishing house' is a one-man-band by Mr Devaney, and is essentially self-published Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:31, 4 November 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 delete per author request. ✗plicit 14:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Christian Network[edit]

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

Total lack of notability, no significant attention in reliable, independent sources. The sources given are either not independent or significant (their own website, the UK government, the "charitycommission" or "christiansingovernment"), or unknown (what is "Contact"? Their own magazine, someone else's? Unverifiable as written). Looking for better sources gives nothing in Gbooks (logical for a recent organisation) or GNews (much more worrying, a notable organisation in the UK should have some GNews results surely), and very few other hits (only 45!). Article also gives no idea about why the network would be a notable organisation. Fram (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't agree the assessment (how can the UK Government or Charity Commission be described as non-notable?!), but I want the article deleted anyway please. Bermicourt (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of these sources was described as non-notable? They aren't independent, they don't confer notability, but that doesn't mean (obviously) that e.g. the UK government itself wouldn't be notable. Anyway, you can tag the article with Template:Db-g7 if you want it deleted. Fram (talk) 12:43, 4 November 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 Einsatzgruppen. Actually merge, but the content lacks the inline citations necessary for a merger. If those are provided, content can be merged from history. Sandstein 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonderkommandos of Einsatzgruppen[edit]

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

Only two inbound links in article space; the scope of the article overlaps substantially with the main Einsatzgruppen page and should probably be replaced with a redirect to Einsatzgruppen, which covers the material much better. Ich (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ich (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ich (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Einsatzgruppen per nom. It is questionable whether this subject actually has stand-alone notability - the references all appear to refer essentially to Einsatzgruppen. Without any actual in-line citations identifying at least the page number the information in the article comes from it is incredibly hard to assess the notability of it. I think this is also a reasonable WP:TNT case due to the very poor state of the citations and poor quality of the article. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Einsatzgruppen and link from Sonderkommando (disambiguation). No need for a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While there is independent information about Sonderkommandos, they were part of the overall Einsatzgruppen organization. Better suited as part of the main article in my view. Intothatdarkness 23:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do no merge This issue could not be simply solved by voting. Einsatzgruppen were divided into einsatzkommandos and sonderkommandos. There is the separate article about Einsatzkommando in Wikipedia as the subunits of Einsatzgruppen, so, logically, the separate article on Sonderkommandos as the subunits of Einsatzgruppen is also required. The other reason that this article is required is the fact that many other articles in Wikipedia refer or should refer to this article of Sonderkommandos of Einsatzgruppen. I can show examples. Many articles on other Sonderkommandos as the special units of Third Reich could be found in Wikipedia therefore we need this article to distinguish Sonderkommandos of Einsatzgruppen from the other Sonderkommandos as the special units of Third Reich. It is ridiculous to confuse, for example, Sonderkommandos comprised from jewish prisoners with Sonderkommandos of Einsatzgruppen that employed SS-men, war criminals. I found several articles in Wikipedia under the extended protection from which could be made references (links) to the article of Sonderkommandos of Einsatzgruppen. For example: Einsatzgruppen, Einsatzkommandos. Also, I found that the articles of Paul Blobel, Walter Blume, Einsatzgruppen trial and many other Wikipedia articles could refer (link) to this article. I agree that the article must be improved --Slav70 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an argument for keeping this article, but an argument for correct linking from other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me to change my mind on this, at the very least, I would want to see how this article is actually supported so that it passes WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article do not presently do this because there are no page references so it is impossible to see how the article content is actually supported. Even with this, merging to Einsatzgruppen still looks like the best option for reasons of presentation. The differences between different sonderkommandos (which is ultimately just a German word for "special command unit", and so of course has been used for other things) can be explained at the Einsatzgruppen article. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide sources within a few days. If you think that the merging this article with Einsatzgruppen is the best option, the article of Einsatzkommando by the same reasons must be merged with the Einsatzgruppen article. Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos are the subunits of Einsatzgruppen.--Slav70 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Einsatzkommando is well-written and clearly demonstrates why it should be a stand-alone article. Please understand that the objections here are about the article and nothing else. FOARP (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sonderkommandos of Einsatzgruppen could also become a well-written article with time. There is a very insignificant difference between Sonderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos as the subunits of Einsatzgruppen. There are many materials on this topic.--Slav70 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said that Einsatzkommando is well-written. Please read carefully the article of Einsatzkommando, and you will find that approximately ninety percent of this article is about Einsatzgruppen, especially about the structure of Einsatzgruppen. Therefore, the big part of this article must be transferred to and merged with the article of Einsatzgruppen.--Slav70 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 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 11:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebates Conditional on Positive Reviews[edit]

Rebates Conditional on Positive Reviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable as a standalone concept. At best could be merged into Rebate (marketing). Retswerb (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just unimportant. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacking coverage as an actual term used. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 4 November 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 MRC (company). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpinMedia[edit]

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

This page should either be deleted or merged to Spin (magazine). This short-lived media holding company is not independently notable. While founded in 1999 as a non-notable blog, the company really notably existed for only 4 years when it owned a number of magazines that have their own articles. There is really no need for this separate article and not enough source material for an independent article. All of this can duly be covered in the respective articles, especially in Spin (magazine). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: With MRC. I do not concur with the suggestion of merging the article in question to Spin (magazine) since it is a collective entity and not a single publisher of mass media. The article contains reliable sources and barely meets WP:SIGCOV, however, it should be merged with the latest entity that purchased it, which I believe is Billboard Media Group, part of MRC, as the sources state. Spin is no longer a part of SpinMedia. If there are archived, cached copies of the Billboard links that are dead, and they are added to the article, it may meet the criteria for notability and the article may avoid deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Spin (magazine). TolWol56 (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and oppose merge to Spin (magazine) per well reasoned comments by Multi7001. Ultimately, I don't think there is a good merge target for the article and the content provides an important history of several notable publications which are widely used as sources in music articles on wikipedia. It's of value to our readers to know about the publishers of the resources we use to source our articles. Further, splitting out the content to multiple articles isn't really possible for attribution purposes. We can't redirect to multiple places, so I think keeping is the best choice.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to MRC per ATD-R; lacks sufficient SIGCOV to warrant an independent article. ——Serial 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MRC (company) as above since the topic company fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability in its own right. HighKing++ 21:15, 8 November 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. David Eppstein and DGG have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abkar[edit]

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

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources Persia ☘ 21:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, nominator's argument is flawed. Clearly meets WP:V, so the relevant guideline would be WP:NACADEMIC, which has not been addressed. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respected teacher but from what I saw in the article and my own research, article doesn't pass GNG so delete --Mardetanha (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.per nom.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think the citation record is a marginal pass of WP:NPROF C1 in a lower citation field (with top cited papers having 134, 100, 75 citations; bolstered by several more papers with fairly solid numbers). The deanship does not meet WP:NPROF C6, but doesn't detract from notability either. Membership in the Iranian Academy of Literature might meet WP:NPROF C3, if it could be supported with a reliable source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sufficient convinced by David Eppstein's point that the subject is in a higher citation area of a low-citation field (well, and also the point regarding the Iranian Academy of Literature) to strike my !vote. OTOH, language and other difficulties make it more difficult to find sourcing on people from Iran, and the subject is close enough to the notability bar that I don't have the confidence to replace at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Leaning “Keep”. Not clear that he is a clear pass on any NPROF single criteria, but he is close in several. H-index (22) is low, but 12 first-authored publications with 23 - 134 is pretty good. Having been Dean is pretty good. I think some leeway is also suitable non non-western academics, to counter strong US systematic bias. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He has a successful academic career, obviously, but nothing is standing out to me. Mathematics is a low-citation field, but to me the implication of that is that we have less ability to use WP:PROF#C1 for many mathematicians; I don't think it's a good idea to calibrate our expectations for citations too far downward, because when the numbers get smaller they also get noisier. In any case, his top-cited work is in the Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications which covers a higher-citation subtopic of mathematics. So although two papers with three-digit citations is good, I'm not entirely convinced that it's good enough. The "Young Mathematicians Prize of 2003" is a national-level award, but for a junior researcher, not quite enough to convince me of #C2. Membership in the "Mathematics group of Iranian Academy of Literature" sounds on the face of it like something that could pass #C3, but on his home page [11] he lists this as a form of editorial work, not as an honor or selective society membership. Dean is a high administrative position, but not enough for #C6. Membership in editorial board is not enough for #C8. So while he comes close in many criteria, I don't think there's anything that pushes him over the top. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteI had never thought of dealing with the low citations in math the way DavidE suggests, but it makes a great deal of sense and should clarifgy discussions in this field and probably other low-citation fields. . Loooking at other factors, Dean of faculty is a seond or third-level position at most universities, and he not editor in chief of a journal, but a member ofc the editorial board. Comparatively, checking the catogory for Iranian mathematicians, the otherr in that category are consideraably more notable--some even famous. -- DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:06, 4 November 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 Donald Duck in comics. There was a firmer consensus that there is not a justification for an independent article than for what the outcome should be. Rather than relist I have chosen a redirect target that gained some agreement. Other editors may, using our normal processes, change this redirect target and/or choose to merge any applicable information into other articles. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleDuck[edit]

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

Italian-only Disney storyline. I prodded this wih "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. ". PROD was removed by User:Donaldd23 with no comment outside a request for AfD. Here we go, then. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 4 November 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White & Sons[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Govvy (talk) 10:59, 4 November 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 Bandy. Whether some other split of Bandy is needed for size is left to editorial discretion at Talk:Bandy. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formation (bandy)[edit]

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

Largely original research or personal opinion on the the term of the sport bandy. I can't find anything of any sustenance to explain this term or usage in the game in any detail or enough for a stand alone article. It was redirected to the main article and quickly reverted, so here we are. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT WP:BEFORE I find much RS. Like this, and this. Federation of International Bandy. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Merge or redirect Perhaps a WP:ATD-M or a WP:CHEAP R to Bandy. We have quite a few Bandy articles. Lightburst (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a new article which is just in its beginning development. It could be marked as a stub so far, but shouldn't be deleted. In what way would this article be less relevant for Wikipedia readers than e.g. formation (association football)? Is football for some reason more important than bandy just because it is a larger sport globally? Bandy långe (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that football formations are discussed in detail in reliable sources and there is enough information in said sources to base a stand alone article off. This particular sport does not seem to have enough analyses of formations to warrant their own article. The place for initial development was in the Draft space which you decided you wanted to opt out of that process, so the next option was to redirect to the primary topic of Bandy which you also decided wasn't good enough, all of which is within policies. So now it is up for the community to decide if this warrants it's own article and whether to redirect, delete or merge. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's no difference. There are viable sources to use for this. The draft form should not be used for articles which are ready as they are, even of they are stubs, and there is no reason to delete an article just because it is not a draft. Bandy långe (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-merge to bandy with the understanding that it could be split back out if the section became overwhelming long. Right now it isn't, and the possibility that it could get long enough is not a good reason for multiplying articles. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:44, 4 November 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 Withdrawn (article rewritten and kept).. Closing the discission I started. Article has been TNTed and rewritten, addressing my initial concerns, no delete votes remain, the consensus is to keep the new version. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune in fiction[edit]

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

It is plausible this could be rewritten into something, BUT what we have here likely needs a WP:TNT treatment. The article is an unreferenced list of random works in which Neptune appears in; in many, it plays a minor role in the background. Having rewritten some similar articles from scratch (Earth in science fiction), IMHO nothing here is worth salvaging, as the examples here, while "correct", don't help establish notability of the subject, and only a few would survive if this is rewritten (based on which examples are repeated in RS). Given that SF Encyclopedia's entry for Neptune is a redirect to https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/outer_planets (which has a paragraph on Neptune), the best alternative to outright hard deletion I can think of would be a redirect to Solar System in fiction (a terrible, unreferenced article but one that is likely notable, as a parent article to Foo planet in fiction, a category which contains several stand-alone notable topics - Earth, Moon, Venus and Mars, for example; I intend to work on this one day). Anyway, coming back here - unless someone can find better sources and rewrite this, this should be deleted and redirected (and if anyone wants to rewrite it, I'd suggest starting something from scratch in a section at the "solar system in fiction" anyway, rather than trying to deal with this list, 99% if not 100% of which probably needs to go). Ps. I have reviewed the other SF encyclopedias, most do not have an entry on Neptune or significant discussion. Greenwood has a chapter on "Jupiter and the Outer Planets" with a very short paragraph mentioning Neptune: [15]. There is one exception: "Science Fact and Science Fiction" has a half-page four-paragraph dedicated entry. So there is scope for rewriting this into a short entry although notability is borderline (one source is not enough for GNG's requirement of multiple sources, IMHO, but on the other hand, we have the unwritten rule of thumb that a topic that has an entry in a specialized encyclopedia probably merits one in ours) - but I stand by my view that we need to start with a WP:TNT. I will further volunteer to rewrite this myself since I have access to all the sources, but I don't want to be bogged down with the current gunk. If I have time to start the rewrite before this AfD concludes I'll link my draft here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has done a better job than me at finding sources as I couldn’t find any treating this as a topic. Sources presented here are not significant so this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:LISTN. Information currently presented is WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is clearly not a useless article. I don't understand the deletion critieria anymore. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leanne Sepulveda You can start by familiarizing yourself with the policies and clarifications, such as WP:ITSUSELESS aka WP:ITSUSEFUL before voting. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've rewritten it from scratch. I disagree with the assertion that Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia is the only one of the sources that provides WP:Significant coverage; while The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia aren't all that lengthy in their coverage of Neptune (and Triton), the coverage is obviously way beyond WP:Trivial mentions. TompaDompa (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Science Fact and Science Fiction is essentially 1.5 paragraphs about Neptune in fiction as the rest is speaking about the planet. Science Fiction Literature through History is just two paragraphs looking at Uranus and Neptune together in an 'Outer Planets' section. Similarly the SF Encyclopedia is an 'Outer Planets' section with perhaps a paragraph fully dedicated to Neptune. This isn't too convincing to me for a standalone. Maybe a merge to an Outer Planets in Fiction including Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus as this seems to be how sources treat the subject? Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that such a merge is the best idea, for a few reasons of which I'll focus on two.
        Firstly, I'm not sure I agree that this is how the sources treat the subject. Some of the sources have combined encyclopaedia entries for the planets, sure, but they still discuss them separately one at a time within those entries for the most part (as opposed to discussing them collectively). Moreover, a merge that seems to make sense when looking at it from the perspective of whether we should have a stand-alone article about Neptune in fiction might not make sense when looking at it from the perspective of whether we should have a stand-alone article about Uranus in fiction, Saturn in fiction, or Jupiter in fiction. Having taken a quick look at the sources with regard to Saturn and Jupiter in particular, I don't think it does make sense.
        Secondly, in order to create such an article we would need to have proper content about the other three planets (and ideally be able to write something of not inconsiderable length about them collectively), and at present we really don't. This does not necessarily mean that we should never do so (though that is what I'm leaning towards), but now would not be the right time regardless. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some of the sources have combined encyclopaedia entries for the planets and your statements about the state of the Saturn and Jupiter articles contradict in order to create such an article we would need to have proper content about the other three planets. The Urunus and Saturn articles are currently barely sourced and, if sources were added, they would just be the same ones (even the same page numbers) as the Neptune article. The Saturn article only sources examples except one to The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. I looked this up and again it references an example used in a paragraph about imagining life on other worlds (this book never mentions Neptune). You have done a great job tidying this up. The best way to honour and retain this is to put it in the same context of 'outer planets'. Maybe a merge is not a discussion for here but without this I will have to stick with delete as I can't see the sigcov. At the moment it's like using sources on the Three Little Pigs to justify an article about the pig who made his house with bricks. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You misunderstand. The sourcing for Jupiter in fiction, Saturn in fiction, and Uranus in fiction is absolutely atrocious and those articles need to be rewritten from scratch as this one was. The sources at those articles weren't the sources I was referring to. Rather, looking at what The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia, and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders say about Jupiter and Saturn in particular, I have come to the conclusion that writing an article about Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune combined would not make sense. It's worth noting that the entry that covers Neptune covers none of the other three planets in one of these four sources, Uranus but neither Saturn nor Jupiter in another, Uranus and Saturn but not Jupiter in a third, and all four planets in the last one. You worry that I'm using sources with broader scopes to write about narrower ones, and I worry that you're doing the opposite (why would we bundle Jupiter with the other three planets when the only source that does so is The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy?). On the subject of WP:Significant coverage, it should also be noted that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. TompaDompa (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I’ve withdrawn my !vote as I think the article is in pretty good shape now - excellent work! I am still in favour of a merge but I think it’s really just a preference at this point rather than a policy/guideline argument. Bravo again! Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TomaDompa's rewrite. There is certainly room for further discussion on whether it should remain as a standalone article or combined into an "outer planets" article per the suggestion above, but the immediate concern of the previous version of this "article" being an indiscriminate, unreferenced mess has been resolved. Rorshacma (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Effectively, the WP:TNT has happened, without the history being deleted - that's all good, thank you TompaDompa. No need for further discussion, any merge discussions, if desired, can take place on article's talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 5 November 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 10:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stradford International College[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Tagged for insufficient sources and for WP:SPS since 2016. Geoff | Who, me? 10:22, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Brazilians[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian Brazilian, these is no need for this page either. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 4 November 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 11:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line[edit]

Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely fails WP:GNG. I can no longer access both [16] and [17], but judging by their titles, they seem to mention the transmission line trivially, not as the main topic of the websites. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per NemesisAT.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 02:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 4 November 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Canción[edit]

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

A quick Google search shows neither SIGCOV nor any notability to meet WP:NSONG. Htanaungg (talk) 07:32, 4 November 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 Mite. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acari[edit]

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

This article is a longstanding duplicate of mite. For those unfamiliar, mites comprise two distinct, probably not particularly closely related orders of arachnids, the Acariformes and the Parasitiformes, which were historically grouped together in the subclass "Acari", which is still used as a technical term to refer to mites collectively, even if that group is no longer considered monophyletic. In academic literature, there is no distinction made between "mite" and "Acari". Apparently, the whole reason for having these two, nearly identical in scope articles is that "Mite" in English semantically excludes ticks, which are a subgroup of the Parasitiformes. To me, this is not enough of a distinction to justify a wholly separate article with a nearly identical scope. There is no reason that ticks cannot be given proportionate coverage in the mite article. I propose that this article be Redirected to mite. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews analysis: Mite: 1650 view per day, Acari: 190 [18]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the way to do anything.
  • This is an encyclopedia and so must be usable. Whatever that requires.
  • The pageview number is obviously irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia. Those numbers are unsurprising.
  • There still has been no evidence presented to support nominator's taxonomic contention. This is 100% personal opinion. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can WP:BOLDLY redirect an article, there is no requirement to get consensus unless someone challenges it, I did not revert a second time after jts restored the article. Opening an AfD is not a forumshop, it's a way to attract more contributors to get broad consensus. Its very strange for you to say that I do not understand consensus when having looked through your edit history, you do not appear to have had any long-form discussions with any other user prior to to this article. It is not personal opinion, you have not presented any evidence in favour of your view either. You also have not presented an argument as to why having two articles with nearly identical scope (and as of time of writing, nearly identical content) is useful to the reader. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There is very substantial duplication between these articles, and I see no reason why both the monophyly and common name issues could not be handled in one single article - as they largely are already at Mite. (NB, Parasitiformes has been left a bit of a backwater and among other things lacks a link to... Mite.) As for procedural concerns, it is true that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Parasitic_Lice_Classification has a level of subject knowledge that is unlikely to be brought to bear here, and it would be useful for participants in that discussion to comment in this AfD - drop a more obvious note, Hemiauchenia? But forumshopping is not a concern; AfD is the most public arbiter of these questions, so this is more of an escalation, which is fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parasitiformes indeed is a lacking article, but it does link to mite in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:37, 10 November 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 Habib Wahid#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moina Go[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM; no notability to be a standalone article. (Maybe it should be merged or redirected to List of songs recorded by Habib Wahid.) Htanaungg (talk) 07:22, 4 November 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) 15:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afro B[edit]

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

Lack of notability Vitaium (talk) 06:33, 4 November 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 11:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine, Wyoming[edit]

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

Two houses face each other, each at some distance from the road, and I'm not finding any indication these are the remains of a town. Searching is maddening due to false hits, but as far as I can I find nothing. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article doesn't say that this is a town, it's only a community. Looking on Google Maps, there seems to be a bit more than two houses, especially further up northeast. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Community" is a WP euphemism for the GNIS term "populated place", but in any case a diffuse sprinkling of buildings isn't sufficient evidence of a town/community/village/whatever. Right now I can't get evidence past "name on a map", which we have almost never accepted as good enough: there are just too many mistakes. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've removed the "community" label as it was not reliably sourced. Unless good sourcing can be found, this doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG; pointing at a few buildings on a map and calling it an unincorporated community is not what we do. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not a legally-recognised populated place as required by WP:GEOLAND, not otherwise notable under WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll admit that this might be confounded by the extremely common word "sunshine" making it hard to find good results, but all I could find on a newspaper search is that one person was born there once. "Robert S "Steve" Riley -obituary". Casper Star-Tribune. Casper, Wyoming. 2014-08-27. p. 5. Retrieved 2021-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.</ref> jp×g 02:51, 10 November 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 verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heropanti 2[edit]

Heropanti 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heropanti 2 This is an unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability for films that have been produced and are awaiting release. Such movies are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

  • 1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
  • 2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
  • 3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Category:AfC comment templates An article should speak for itself and explain why it is notable. This article only says that production took place. An analysis of the sources shows that most of them are press releases, mostly announcing people associated with the film.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing selection of writer No Yes No
2 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing selection of director No Yes No
3 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing one of the stars No Yes No
4 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing the leading lady No Yes No
5 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing the release date No Yes No
6 Times of India Photos of stars Yes No No Yes
7 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing completion of principal photography No No Yes No
8 Times of India Report of stars returning to Mumbia after shoot. No No Not usually No
9 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing musical appointments No No Yes No
10 Bollywood Humana Press release concerning various personnel. No No Yes No
11 FirstPost Press release concerning music No No Yes No

Two of them refer to the completion of production, but one of them is another press release, and the other says, in the Times of India, which is not a reliable sources, that the stars went home after the shoot. The fact that the film is in the can does not mean that putting it in the can was notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and salt until May 2022. There isn't enough to show any notability for this film yet. Can be discussed in the Heropanti article until reviews and screenings are out. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The threshold for a future film is commencement of principle photography. This one had many false starts, but now, not only is principle photography commenced, but is finished, and the release date set.
Robert is taking a very hard reading of the WP:GNG, which is often appropriate, but not always.
WP:NFF from its beginning has provided and exception to the GNG, or certainly permission to reading the GNG more gently. And there are some very good reasons for it to do so. One is that Wikipedia readers expect coverage of eagerly anticipated new films, to the point that if the article is missing, readers will spontaneously become new editors and write the missing article. The reaction to seek SALTing is simple evidence that this is what’s happening. The ghits are huge, there is excitement, and it will continue, increasingly, until about a week after release. NFF is not at all like NSPORTS or the variety of SNGs that encourage permastubs, but it addresses a short period, between commitment of the bulk of the budget, and commercial release. If, after release, quality sources don’t immediately arise, then it can be deleted (NFF doesn’t apply post-release). However, this is rare, as big budget, multi-star films that tank still receive coverage. NFF has an excellent track record for enduring articles.
It is most undesirable to force it back to draftspace. Draftspace is not meant to be a shadow encyclopedia. New editors should not be told to go to draftspace to read what they expect to read.
If there weren’t a flurry of sources every week, then it could be better to force it into a tail section of the first movie, but this means the first movie article will have an ugly split, and the history of the two films will be unfairly mangled. The current article (pair of pages) has dozens of sources in the history. All but one or two of them won’t survive two weeks beyond the release date. All those sources do not belong in the first move page history, but the second. The same history concerns apply to the editors in the edit history. Also, this approach is not applicable to non-sequels.
NFF exists as a temporary threshold-lowering guideline for good reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify This has all the ingredients to become a notable film and it will be in all probability. But Robert's analysis is also correct. So my vote would be to take the mid-path and draftify for now and as soon as reception emerges, bring it to main space. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This article received hundreds of views per day [22]. Do you expect them to follow it to draft? Or do you think it’s ok to create yet another fork? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still Keep. : [23] reports theatrical release 6 May 2022. Princple photography started and finished. There is no doubt that this highly anticipated film will be notable. The article is currently receiving >1000 page views per day. "heropanti 2 release date" has 1.5M Ghits. Forcing it back to draft means fighting with the readership, and they will keep trying to re-create it, because the readers expect Wikipedia to be up to date with information. There is a lot of information in the article, all reliably sourced. Deletion does not serve any reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 4 November 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 Kingdom of Kuku. Daniel (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Ahmed N'Ulqadi[edit]

Sidi Ahmed N'Ulqadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not mentioned in given online source; seems like a WP:HOAX or failing that a blatant sourcing fail (WP:V). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Curbon mentions a possible alternate spelling. Obviously, if sources can be found to support an actual article, nothing would prevent that happening; but there's not much use that one sentence with a fake source could have in that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems an alternate spelling may be Sidi Ahmed ou el Khadi. Curbon7 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is highly dubious and fails WP:V so it should really be a speedy delete. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sidi is an honorific. Names from Arabic writing are infamous for being transliterated variously. The Roberts reference cited in the article renders this name as Ahmed ou l-Qadi throughout. See, e,g. [24]. Oussedik (2005) renders the name similarly, though I cannot tell from the snippet if that book can serve as significant coverage. French Wikipedia [25] cites an earlier work by Oussedik (Tahar Oussedik, 'Le Royaume De Koukou', p. 7-8-9-10) but I cannot preview it.[26] Not a hoax but also not multiple reliable sources I can point to online. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • True indeed. And when that name is in a different writing system, such as أحمد بن القاضي, we have the additional issue of figuring out all the different ways it has been romanized at different times by different people. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would benefit from some further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unsure but perhaps some info can be brought over from the French Wiki. I brought in some categories and a ref section Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on my searches, there are several French-language texts that validate the subject of this article. A precise verification can be made from this text, in the fifth paragraph: En haute Kabylie, le royaume de Koukou, fonde par Sidi Ahmed ou el Kadhi - In upper Kabylie, the Kingdom of Kuku, founded by Sidi Ahmed N'Ulqadi. On page 10 of this text, the founder of Kuku is given as "Ahmed-ben-el-Qadi", almost certainly an alternate translation of the same name - see Curbon7's comment above. Given this I feel like there is a bit more to go off of, so deletion should be withheld as verification is now possible. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging No Great Shaker and Lightburst in case they find this update worthy of reassessment. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you put RS it in the article. Sometimes an AfD brings sources that are never put in the article, and then the article remains a stub. But if we can build it it makes a stronger case. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that all there is? If all the information we have about this person is that they were the founder of this kingdom, that probable doesn't warrant a separate article. The second of your sources has Le royaume de Koukou fut fondé en 1510 par Ahmed-ben-el-Qadi, qui était juge à la cour des derniers rois de Bougie. Lors de la prise de cette ville, le 6 janvier 1509, il s'était réfugié chez les Qbails des Ait-Ghoubri, à Aourir: il était devenu le chef d'une confédération puissante., but that's very little, and (take a look at WP:NOPAGE), it should probably be merged or redirected with the kingdom article (the only information about this character is indeed in relation with the foundation of the kingdom).. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Kingdom of Kuku. WP:PAGEDECIDE - just because a topic is notable doesn't mean the best way to deal with it need be to give it its own page. Both this page and that for his kingdom are a grand total of one line of text, with much the same content and a sole identical citation. That simply adding the phrase "with Sidi Ahmed N'Ulqadi as its sultan" to the end second sentence of Kingdom of Kuku would transfer all of the unique content of this page to the other indicates that there is little point in preserving these as separate single-sentence micro-stubs unless/until more potential content is identified. This may be a temporary state, but if this kingdom only lasted the duration of this sultan's reign, then it could well be the best way to deal with it permanently. Agricolae (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kingdom of Kuku per the nominator's comment and directly above. Minor clarificatiom: The cited text states a longer duration for the kingdom than a single ruler, See Roberts (2014) ("The 'kingdom' of Koukou that was established by the Ath l-Qadi dynasty and lasted for over a century (c 1515-1632 or 1638 CE) ...."). 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kingdom of Kuku per above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:40, 14 November 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. After three relists there is no consensus on whether this should be an independent article or some kind of redirect. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Access query language[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Possible redirect to PIck OS but unclear to me if any value to that redirect. Might be better as "Access (quary language), the access being in capitals.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pick operating system. I don't think it's a likely search term, but at least the redirect will preserve the history visible to non-admins, in case anyone would ever find it useful. I don't see any sources online to suggest the topic meets WP:GNG, so deletion is a second choice. Though admittedly, the popularity of Microsoft Access makes it hard to separate the search result wheat from the chaff. Ajpolino (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Gallant, Bourdon added to article after my previous comment above; also noting previous comment of definition as permitted by copyright terms. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have access to the Bourdon article and can send to anyone upon request. It doesn't really provide any additional information to add to the article, and certainly nothing to establish notability. It has some nice info about the history of Pick operating system in case anyone is interested in working on that article. Ajpolino (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's a bit more about the query language at Lukaitis (2010), A Brief History of the Pick Environment in Australia. If we keep the article, I agree with Djm-leighpark's suggestion of moving to 'Access (query language)'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Or perhaps 'ACCESS (query language)' is a better move target? I think I prefer the capitalised version, since this is mostly of historical interest. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move per my comments above. It's clear from the history that the Pick system is highly notable and, with Pick/BASIC, as one of the two main work-achieving interfaces to the system, in an ideal world it seems to me that ACCESS would clearly be an important thing to have a good article on. There's one problem: per GNG, the references we actually have seem to be borderline (two not-so-great books and some passing mentions in articles; I found some further). In my view, the obvious importance of the topic justifies overcoming the doubt that the references are enough to furnish a decent article. Furthermore, the historians of past computer systems still appear to be providing useful coverage of Pick, and like COBOL the Pick system is actually still deployed, so if we can excuse my IAR violation of CRYSTALBALL, I do expect the referencing situation to improve. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pick operating system. The references since added fall far short of WP:HEYMANN-style improvement. They seem at best passing mentions. The Lukaitis article has all of one paragraph in eleven pages about the query language. There is no sign that this is a significant area of anyone's computer history research. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:27, 8 November 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. After discounting canvassed / COI comments, there doesn't appear to be much appetite to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio McKee[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as he only has 2 fights in top tier promotions out of the required 3, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division by FightMatrix or Sherdog. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 08:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete: Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under the top tier promotions for he has only 1 fight under UFC and fails GNG for fight info is merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Claims that subject fails WP:MMABIO or WP:NMMA are FALSE as subject has fought in UFC, Bellator and Dream all of which are considered "top tier" according to WP:MMATIER. He also has notable references including multiple Sports Illustrated interviews here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16derria (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— 16derria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: @16derria: I suggest you to read WP:MMATIER, currently only UFC and Invictar are top tier promotion and Bellator was top tier from 2009 to 2015). McKee has only 1 fight under UFC and 1 fight under Bellator in 2019 - see here which during that time Bellator is not a top tier promotion. Secondly, the 2 sources are interview piece which means the source are not independent as the info is deviate form the subject himself for such the subject fails both NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but a more tempered one this time than the last AfD. First, I note that WP:MMANOT hedges the language on the three-top-tier-bout criterion: it's a criteria supporting notability. Second, from that page, "Reliable sourcing is the most important factor." While the SI interviews are interviews, the fact that SI gave that volume of coverage to him is significant. I see enough indicators to support notability for this subject, but I acknowledge that this is a good-faith nomination that raises good points about the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments User 16derria posted a message to users who voted to keep the article at a previous AfD. That seems like a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. For example, C.Fred voted about an hour after receiving the message from 16derria. WP:NMMA seems very clear on the topic of top tier fights--"Have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization". McKee does not meet that criteria. Interviews are not generally considered as meeting WP:GNG, especially when the focus is on McKee's son (which also involves WP:NOTINHERITED). My search also showed that Antonio McKee was never ranked in the top 10 by Sherdog or Fight Matrix. In other words, he fails all notability criteria for MMA fighters. I don't see coverage that meets WP:GNG as most, if not all of it, is routine sports reporting. If someone can show me three good examples that would meet WP:GNG I will happily vote to keep this article. It's important to note that the criteria for MMA fighter notability have changed, evolved, and been quantified since the previous AfD discussions. I am temporarily not voting to give those who want to keep the article a chance to show WP:GNG is met. Full disclosure: I voted to keep this article at the last AfD discussion, but right now I'm leaning delete. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Hi all, as a new editor this is my first time in one of these debates and I apologize if I have not gone about things correctly. I feel strongly this is page does not deserve deletion as the subject was a succesful collegiate athlete who was reported on by the LA Times, fought in UFC, Bellator, Dream and was a long-time champion in M-1. He is also now the head trainer at a gym producing world champions. Please take a look at these various links from a range of publications as evidence that I would hope proves WP:GNG is met: MMAjunkie/USAtoday, Muscle and Fitness, ESPN, Sherdog, Bleacher Report, LA Times/Glendale News Press and Yahoo. (User_talk:16derria) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still unconvinced that WP:GNG is met. The LA Times article is about him winning a state high school wrestling title, not collegiate. Several of the articles you listed were databases and two were promotional articles about he and his son fighting on the same card. Another one is an interview about him promoting a Bellator-UFC title match for his son. To me, these aren't enough, although others may disagree. I will say that there is no doubt the his son meets WP:NMMA, but again, notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Here are more sources regarding the subject and his career: Another Bleacher Report article, UFC, Orange County Register, Edmonton Sun, Bodylock MMA, Wrestling Edge and coverage of his reality show here. I feel this shows WP:GNG is met. (User_talk:16derria) 18:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



  • Keep The wealth of sources regarding the subject to me constitutes "significant coverage" and satisfies WP:GNG. User:Jesslesliee 19:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a more thorough analysis of sources for GNG by independent editors that weren't canvassed to come here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am also not convinced the sources provided add up to GNG, per the analysis of Papaursa. Interviews are not considered sufficient for notability purposes unless SIGCOV is given via independent commentary by the author. JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 6 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Tanna[edit]

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

pomotional, and non-notable. See talk page, and [27] DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG and I am not sure what subjective criteria this article could pass. A clear-cut promotional piece as the nominator says. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero indication of notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I developed a source assessment table based on the sources in the article, and my search for sources has not found additional support, so it appears WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC) - update !vote per comment below - update !vote again per comment below Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Here's the full list of GQ's 50 most influential young Indians of 2019 (GQ India, 2019) Yes Yes ~ 2 paragraphs highlighting his career achievements that support his inclusion as one of the "50 most influential young Indians of 2019" ~ Partial
Rude food by Vir Sanghvi: Making each dish count (Hindustan Times, updated 2020) Yes Yes ~ 4 paragraphs that include biographical and career information ~ Partial
30 Under 30: Restaurateur Karan Tanna's U-turn has held him in good stead (Forbes India, 2017) Yes Yes Yes The article is focused on him, his career, and biographical information ✔ Yes
India doesn't have a single F&B brand that has made a national mark through franchise: Karan Tanna of Yellow Tie Hospitality (BusinessToday, 2018) Yes Limited independence due to the content based mostly on an interview Yes ~ some independent reporting from the interviewer in the introduction, although it is limited ~ Partial
Business on a Platter: What Makes Restaurants Sizzle or Fizzle Out (Vishal, 2019) Yes Yes No This appears to be a minor reference limited to a quote from Tanna. ✘ No
All about BroEat’s community-minded mission to empower restaurants in India, post-lockdown (The Hindu, 2020) Yes Yes ~ The article includes a focus on him, but is mostly focused on a business ~ Partial
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}}.
  • Comment An earlier version of this article [28] also includes Entrepreneur Reveals its 35 Under 35 Class of 2019, (Entrepreneur India Magazine, 2019, one sentence, after a header describing him as "The Relentless Restaurateur"), Can cloud kitchens rescue restaurants? (The Indian Express, 2020, includes quotes of his opinion, independent reporting on his career, and context), New restrictions may plunge food delivery platforms back into peril (Economic Times, 2021, includes quotes of his opinion, with context). I have struck my !vote above due to this additional partial support for WP:BASIC notability, and am currently neutral. Beccaynr (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC) - updated !vote per comment below Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no notability , only promotionalism . This applies to the additional references also. Anything to do with "35 under 35" or or "30 under 30" or "top 50 young Indians" or similar "honours" is a promotional gimmicks. Forbes indulges in many such lists, and the article from there in the table above is a purely promotional article based on what he chose to tell them--looking at it again, I think it's not even reliable enough to be called promotional -- it reads as straightforward advertising. A description as "the relentless restauranteur" is evidence of purely promotional writing. Being quoted in a general article on the field is not notability. Magazines devoted to showcasing the career of entrepreneurs are vehicles for PR agents. "Containing biographical and career information" is usually a reprint of the PR agent's press release. My own rule in cases like this is when there is no evidence of substantial accomplishments such as would generate a genuine news story, anything published is likely to be unreliable. Some of our guidelines for sourcing assumes publishers publish only what is worth publishing. We were remarkably naïve when we drew them up 20 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG, I feel your comment helps articulate some of the issues I have with asserting a keep rationale. There are a few sources that I think indicate notability may exist in the future, and the GQ/Forbes/Entrepreneur lists are a form of attention, but without solid WP:SECONDARY sources about substantial accomplishments, this article appears to become an extension of marketing efforts, which seems like a particular risk for articles about business owners. I have updated my !vote accordingly. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have spent some time studying this. The source analysis table is illuminating. PR that is "almost but not quite good enough" is my verdict. I noted on Commons that the image licence appears inappropriate. That made my antenna twitch, too, and I flagged it there. There is no notability shown. He may be a decent chef doing a good job but he fails WP:BIO. This is fancruftisement. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG's explanation. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I looked at this when it was a draft, and I was not able to see any notability. DGG's assessment is spot on. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:37, 9 November 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is an absence of consensus to discuss, and a reasonable argument for the notability of the subject based on the apparent presence of third-party reviews of the subject's work. BD2412 T 02:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azfar Hussain[edit]

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

Created to promote the subject using poor primary references and self written news - 103.4.65.218 (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 11:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 11:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 11:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) Azfar Hussain is surely a notable figure in his country. His book in Bengali called Darshanakkyan --one of a kind--has been considered a groundbreaking intervention in literary and cultural criticism in Bangladesh (most of the major national dailies and other literary magazines--in both English and Bengali--have published glowing reviews of that book); he also held Summer Distinguished Professorship of English and Humanities at the University of Liberal Arts-Bangladesh; while he serves as Vice-President of the Global Center for Advanced Studies (a prestigious scholarly association in addition to being an experimental graduate school). All these points are covered in the biography of the subject published by the country's most prominent news portal bdnews24.com (https://arts.bdnews24.com/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%AB%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8)

2) He and his works in English have been cited in numerous publications, including some prestigious ones. His work on the Native American poet Joy Harjo called "Joy Harjo and Her Poetics as Praxis" in particular is considered the first postcolonial reading of the poet's work, and it has been cited in many books, journal articles, and dissertations/theses.

3) Significant secondary sources in both English and Bengali are there to support the subject's notability. He writes in Bengali a lot and appears frequently on television in Bangladesh because of his national reputation. Some secondary sources in Bengali:

a) One of the prominent Bengali poets has written on the subject and his book, identifying him as a "significant intellectual": 

 http://www.dainikamadershomoy.com/post/186645

b) One of the leading national dailies in Bangladesh called _Jugantor_ has published an article on the subject's book in Bengali: https://www.jugantor.com/todays-paper/literature-magazine/163337/%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%96%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8--%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF-%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%87

Some secondary sources in English:

a) Bangladesh's leading English-language daily Daily Star --in its weekly literary magazine-- has published an essay on his book: 

https://www.thedailystar.net/book-reviews/news/azfar-hussains-dorshonakkhyan-materialist-philosophy-1735267

b) Yet another prominent English-language daily in Bangladesh has published a review on the subject: http://www.newagebd.net/article/66890/a-poetic-and-political-approach-to-philosophy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smmmaniruzzaman (talk • contribs)

The above editor has found several reviews of the subject's 2019 book. This might support an article on the book, but I think it's still a WP:BLP1E as far as the subject goes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 3c of WP:NAUTHOR per the sources provided above. Typically with authors we look for multiple independent critical reviews of their work to establish notability at AFD in relation to criteria 3c.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:54, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Powell Corner, Virginia[edit]

Powell Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Powell Corner was one of the articles proposed for deletion in the Allen Shop Corner AfD, but not mentioned past that. Looks to be a literal road corner, Newspapers.com results mention a building on "Powell's Corner" but no community wizzito | say hello! 04:34, 4 November 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. North America1000 11:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MPC Associates[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No coverage. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Pilaz (talk) 04:34, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Laurel, Virginia[edit]

Mountain Laurel, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like there's a Mountain Laurel Road, but probably not a community or a mountain. Newspapers.com results mostly contain stuff about mountain laurel flowers and this: https://www.newspapers.com/image/613011825/?terms=%22Mountain%20laurel%22%20Albemarle%20County&match=1 but no community to be seen. wizzito | say hello! 04:33, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Corner, Virginia[edit]

Cash Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cash Corner explains itself: "At the intersection of Route 640 and Route 231, it is the site of the Castle Hill estate. There are no schools, shops, or services of any kind." Was one of the articles proposed for deletion in the Allen Shop Corner AfD, but not mentioned past that. Newspapers.com results mention a Cash Corner in Albemarle County, but not as a place, just likely as a waypoint. (ex. "Route 231 at Cash Corner in Albemarle County") wizzito | say hello! 04:33, 4 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Oromo soldiers in Dessie[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Massacre of Oromo soldiers in Dessie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty simple reasoning, the article doesn't fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it has no reliable source covering the alleged massacre. "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I can't find any reliable sourcing.

Regarding the recent edits to change the wording of the article as only claims still violates WP:ORIGINAL, i.e. you're writing is based on a forum post when there is no reliable source that mentions it (see WP:UGC). Ue3lman (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No reliable source, unverifiable and clearly non-neutral point of view. No corroboration or evidence has emerged. Context includes lots of misinformation by parties to the conflict. There have also been (unverified) reports of false flag attacks by Ethiopian News Agency. Nemozen (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, I don't see how this passes WP:EVENT or even GNG. Reliable news sources are just not reporting a massacre in Dessie - one may have occurred, but unless reliable sources say so we should not have an article saying so. We should not base articles on social media reports from anonymous sources. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite properly, in line with earlier versions. Somebody has now introduced articles on disinformation, alleged by the Ethiopian government (which is obvious, they try to cover up). The pakistan news site seems well informed, we have to tolerate that they misspell all names, when transliterating from Urdu. "Kitow" = "Getachew", "mekli" = "Mekelle" etc. Rastakwere (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Pakistan news source does not describe a massacre occurring in Dessie. It also disputable to what degree a news source established last year and with possibly only one staff member with no obvious editing policy is a pass for WP:NEWSORG. Similarly the article about the Ethiopian government also does not describe a massacre in Dessie. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The irshadgul.com post was published 2 days before the alleged event, so it doesn't make sense as a source for the allegation. It's quite a stretch to assume that "Kitago" is a transliteration of Getachew. The name Kitago appears to be a common Japanese name which doesn't appear anywhere else on the web in connection with Ethiopia or the war. It also contains absurd geographical errors about the capital of Tigray being near the border with Sudan. Clearly not a reliable source for anything let alone events that occured after it was publised. nemozentalk
In principle, if the irshadgul.com article is a translation from an Ethiopian source, then an innocent date error might have occurred due to converting the date from the Ethiopian calendar into the Gregorian calendar. Regarding the transcription, if this went through written Urdu, keep in mind that Persian-Arabic script usually doesn't show vowels, and between voiced 'G' versus unvoiced 'K' is something that can depend on accent, and from 'ch' to 'g' is not impossible either. The geographical "error" could just be sloppy wording - e.g. the intention is to say that the Tigray Region borders Sudan. However, we can't really use a source where this much guessing is needed, with so little sign of editorial checking of content and presentation. After all, what's the point of leaving in random pieces of text such as the half-sentence feast for treatment.? Boud (talk) 03:06, 9 November 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 all but one. Locust Mount, Virginia is the only one with any arguments for keep. Everything else has a consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Wharf, Virginia[edit]

Davis Wharf, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating along with

Nominating many articles here to not clog up anything too much, even though I am doing this in good faith.

Davis Wharf isn't a community; it's a literal wharf in Belle Haven, as seen on this Google Maps listing: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Davis+Wharf+Marine+Service,+Inc./@37.5527843,-75.878023,453m/ Newspapers.com gives results for people from "Davis Wharf", but I'm not sure if that indicates a community.

Deep Hole and High Woods are likely not communities, either. Newspapers.com has a few mentions of a "Deep Hole Road", but nothing indicating a community. No results about "High Woods" on Newspapers.com.

Johnson Corner and Nash Corner are literal road corners. Both were mentioned in this AfD as being proposed for deletion, but weren't mentioned past that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allen_Shop_Corner,_Virginia

No results about Johnson Corner on Newspapers.com. Unsure if the results about Nash Corner are relevant.

Locust Mount is near a "Locust Mount Drive", but seems to be a road where a junkyard and a few houses are, not a community. A few results on Newspapers.com mention a route from "Locustville to Locust Mount".

Mears Station was likely a railroad station, on a road named Mears Station Road, but not a community. Mostly references to the road on Newspapers.com.

I have no clue what Mount Nebo and Mount Zion are, but they don't seem like either communities or mountains to me. Mount Nebo and Mount Zion on Newspapers.com pull up results about a Mount Nebo and a New Mount Zion Baptist church.

I also don't know what Mutton Hunk, Old Trower, Parker Landing, Persimmon Point, and Trower are, but they also don't seem like communitites.

I see one person being listed as "born in Mutton Hunk" and a W.J. Baker in Mutton Hunk, VA on Newspapers.com, but don't know if that means it's a community.

Absolutely no results for Old Trower and Parker Landing on Newspapers.com.

One result about a Persimmon Point: https://www.newspapers.com/image/80094037/?terms=%22persimmon%20point%22%20Accomack%20County&match=1

South Point might have been a map marker for the southernmost direction of the county? A few mentions of people living in or being from South Point or things that happened at the "south point", but I don't know if that means anything about a community.

Trower is very hard to parse through, first result is about someone with the surname Trower arrested in the county, but no community. wizzito | say hello! 03:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Mass-produced GNIS junk. For Mount Zion, for example, topo shows a Mount Zion Church, not that that's a community, notable or otherwise. Neighborhoods would require some significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Made as part of an article-creation campaign at a rate of one every ~30 seconds, zero care was taken when creating these articles, all of which fail WP:GEOLAND as even if the populated (which we do not have a reliable source for as GNIS is not reliable for this) they are not legally recognised through e.g., incorporation. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer so we should not simply reproduce information from GNIS here, but only that part which is notable under the various guidelines, in the form of encyclopaedia articles. FOARP (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Davis Wharf, I can find a number of old references to houses for sale at Davis Wharf or people being "from" Davis Wharf, and it was apparently a site where the mail came in, but couldn't find evidence that it was viewed as a community, rather than just a vague neighborhood. Anyway, no coverage I saw was significant.
Delete Deep Hole, searching is difficult, but I can find nothing significant - references to a large estate along the Potomac, a point in the James River where dredging sand was dumped, and references to Deep Hole Road.
Delete High Woods - hard to search for, but I didn't bring up anything useful. If someone can find something I missed, willing to reconsider.
Delete Johnson Corner - I found nothing to indicate that this is anything other than a named road junction. Any development in the area sees to be related to the nearby Arcadia High School (Virginia) and the railroad point Horsey, Virginia. If this article is deleted, Johnson Corner, Virginia should be G14'd.
Weak keep Locust Mount, per this. I'm struggling to find much more, but this one was at least a legitimate community in the 1840s, and it looks like it needs more individual attention than the bulk-mass here. Ken Gallager moved this to the CDP section of the county community template last month, is there census material about this?
Delete Mears Station, all I can turn up is an Army dirigible becoming stranded here, and references to businesses operated by a Mr. Mears in Keller, Virginia
Delete Mount Nebo - All I can turn is a Masons lodge elsewhere in the state, the biblical mountain, various churches in other places, and a rail station in Ohio.
Delete Mount Zion - almost impossible to search for, but everything seems to be about Christian schools and churches elsewhere
Delete Mutton Hunk - mainly finding a modern park and 1890s and 1900s amateur baseball teams looking for Mutton Hunk. Found this, but Branch Valley seems to only be bringing up stuff from other locations.

Don't have time to look at the other six right now. Hog Farm Talk 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nash Corner - apparently just a road junction, just turning up a couple stray passing mentions and a car dealership in Newport News.
Delete Old Trower - nothing anywhere close to significant coverage.
Delete Parker Landing - Just about everything significant I turned up was for a location in Pennsylvania.
Delete Persimmon Point - found a reference to developed housing in York County, but all I can find for this is references to buoy markers and navigational lights.

Hog Farm Talk 22:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete South Point - not finding much I can tie down to this location, which I guess makes sense because GNIS originates from a National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and a lot of the GNIS pickups from NGIA maps seem to be false positives.
Delete Trower - pretty much just finding last names.

Hog Farm Talk 23:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Locust Mount - There is population and area information available from the 2020 census; I can circle back and flesh it out. --Ken Gallager (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Re: Locust Mount, simply being listed in the census does not mean that the location was ever legally recognised as required for presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND #1. Nor, also, does having a post office, since post offices may be anywhere and were/are often just an adjunct to a store. There's one piece of potential RS coverage linked above but we really need a second for a WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Hog Farm's judgment is generally sound in matters of GNIS stubs, I would be inclined to agree with them on principle, but fifteen articles is far too many to individually consider in one nomination. Reviewing sources for one geostub AfD typically takes me around ten to twenty minutes -- so I'm looking at an AfD that would require several hours to make a !vote on. I'd recommend withdrawing this and renominating them individually...jp×g 04:24, 10 November 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 03:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnolds Corner, Virginia[edit]

Arnolds Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a road corner, not a community. wizzito | say hello! 02:37, 4 November 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 03:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allens Mill, Virginia[edit]

Allens Mill, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 02:35, 4 November 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 03:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch Fork, Virginia[edit]

Antioch Fork, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to be a road fork, not a community. wizzito | say hello! 02:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 02:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 02:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The topos say that there was nothing here until the 1950s, when the Southern States was built; most of the other businesses seem to have arrived in the 1980s, but of those which have websites, none of them appear to know that they are in Antioch Fork. Searching produces a pre-GNIS listing which describes it as a "locale", and a number of references having to do with road construction/maintenance, but nothing suggesting any settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No topos. Four newspaper results (none of which even remotely resemble WP:SIGCOV, as they are all in relation to road maintenance). jp×g 13:21, 10 November 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 03:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde–Kosovo relations[edit]

Cape Verde–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no relations between these countries, as Cape Verde does not recognise Kosovo. This fact is already covered in International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Entities_that_have_not_recognised_Kosovo_as_an_independent_state. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 4 November 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) DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chopper (video game)[edit]

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

This article concerns an iOS game released in 2009. The article cites no sources and BEFORE searches do not return any reliable sources that could be used to support the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 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 03:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar Calais[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. I can't find any reliable sources to add to this article. It has been tagged for attention since 2016 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination, the subject does not meet WP:NARTIST. There are also WP:V issues, the majority of biography content being unsourced. ––FormalDude talk 03:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when I read her CV, I'm not convinced that she's met any of your notability criteria for artists; it's all rather minor. But she does have a webpages where she lists coverage she's received in the press: [29]. Most of that coverage is in local newspapers and none of it is in specialized art publications. If she's notable at all, then per the GNG. (I haven't yet read all the coverage.) Vexations (talk) 10:59, 4 November 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 03:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetlin Junction, Alaska[edit]

Tetlin Junction, Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely not a community. Google Maps shows a crossing between two highways, with a building nearby. wizzito | say hello! 01:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI GNIS is unreliable for "feature class" designations such as Populated Place. The names in the database were copied over from topo maps, and there are numerous transcription errors where crossroads, rail junctions, landforms, etc are mislabeled as populated places. We would need a better source to support the notion that it is/was a community, and it would also need to meet GEOLAND through either official recognition or significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:GNIS is highly unreliable in its classification and does not bestow notability. All newspapers.com results refer to it a a location at one end of the Taylor Highway (a possible redirect target), like [30], no descriptions of a community. One mentions the Roadhouse there, but I don't see notability. Reywas92Talk 13:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGAZETEER - Fails WP:GEOLAND as, even if it were ever populated, it was never a legally recognised populated place. GNIS is an unreliable source for whether a place was populated or not, and anyway does not confer legal recognition. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, and does not include articles merely on geographical locations regardless of notability. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're citing an essay created by yourself earlier this year, one which contradicts long-standing consensus. OTOH, WP:5P1 begins with "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Which of the two do you think I should side with? As for the "legally recognized" part, the portion of GEOLAND you're cherry-picking goes on further to state "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." We haven't even addressed long-standing editing activity on the part of many editors, motivated by their belief that CDPs are totally artificial creations of the Census Bureau. In other words, according to that definition of "legally recognized", I'll be eagerly awaiting all the ensuing AFDs on those places. Unless, of course, targeting this one article is merely another example of picking low-hanging fruit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RadioKAOS. I'm citing an essay I wrote myself because it argues concisely, without me having to repeat it here, why I think you're wrong about WP:5P (which is...also an essay-level guide BTW, albeit a high-impact one, and not a policy or guideline). In contrast WP:NOT is core policy, above even WP:GEOLAND which is a guideline, and states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary/directory (which is what gazetteers essentially are according to our article on them). Obviously I do not believe it contradicts long-standing consensus, for the reasons stated in the essay (i.e., Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gazetteer).
I'm not sure why you are bringing up CDPs here. You haven't provided a reason to believe this place was ever legally recognised in any way. There is nothing wrong with targeting low-hanging fruit, indeed I would say this particular fruit is no longer even on the branch. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 5 November 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loungart[edit]

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

Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 00:39, 4 November 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 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kérdik[edit]

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

From User:Scyrme: "All online mentions of this I could find only quote this article, and the vast majority are apparently Wikipedia mirrors/clones that simply reproduce the article. The external link given at the end of the article itself is a deleted Wordpress blog with little information affirming this article, as far as I could tell. (A "Seigneur Kérdik" is mentioned reverently, but none of the details in this articles are given; the same blog also has a prayer to "Lucifer" in the form of poetry.) Furthermore, both this article & its French counterpart were the only contributions of a single user who hasn't been active since 2013. Other editors of the article are primarily responsible only for basic maintenance (categories, etc.) which doesn't imply that any of them have actually heard of "Kérdik" before encountering this article (or one of its clones). Therefore, I'm not certain the article is truthful or verifiable. At best, it seems to be a collection of unverifiable anecdotes, but I think it's more likely just entirely made-up." wizzito | say hello! 00:38, 4 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_4&oldid=1057552655"