Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 08 November 10 >

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 Speedy keep. The subject a long time legislator passes WP:NPOL(non-admin closure) Venkat TL (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Deshmukh[edit]

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

"Keep" -Anil Deshmukh has been a public office holder for more than twenty-five years as member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly or as minister in Maharashtra state government. He is currently under police investigation but that does not make him a non-notable person.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[He is not notable he isn't actively in politics so we cannot let his page be active and one more reason is that no one views this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:1C:691D:E04C:26BF:1101:501F (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On average 2,214 people are reading this article per day, far more than many other articles.[1] Jonathansammy (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing I see and can read is enough to meet WP:N. We do not delete pages based on how frequently they're read, and not being active in politics is irrelevant (and by the looks of it that argument's patently false). Also, there's no point opening an AfD unless you're legitimately looking to delete the page. Defensive AfDs aren't a thing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the ping) @Jéské Couriano:, to clear up what is a very confusing AfD: this AfD itself was not created originally by Jonathan. The page was tagged with an AfD, but the AfD tagger did not create an actual AfD page or listing on AfD. It seems that Jonathan created the AfD page by expressing support to keep the page, but Jonathan is not nom. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 01:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I can't make heads or tails of this nomination, but the article has loads of sources and the only argument that has been advanced for deletion has no grounding in policy. Mlb96 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep no valid basis for nomination, and the subject is a clear WP:NPOL pass. Mccapra (talk) 03:46, 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 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 23:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eşmekaya Dam[edit]

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

After doing WP:BEFORE the only mention I can find of this dam, outside of a few websites listing its specifications, is a passing mention in an article called "Wetland management in Turkey: Problems, achievements and perspectives" in Afr. J. Agric. Res. Therefore, the page fails WP:GNG. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 22:49, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Charlotte of Cambridge[edit]

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

Princess Charlotte is not a public figure. Beyond the fact of her parents having a child who happened to be her, her parents have been largely successful in their attempts to keep her out of the public eye. In policy terms. Most of the sources on this article are describing her birth, and clearly not discussing her as a person in significant depth. As per WP:INVALIDBIO her parents do not confer notability on her. The most in-depth articles about her are gossip about her dresses and how much money she might inherit when her parents die.

I recognize this may well start a discussion about many other articles in this vein, I've chosen Charlotte as I think there's a infinitesimally better argument that George is notable, and some squeamishness in the deletion discussion around Harry and Megan's children as some have expressed concerns that removing only them would be somehow out of spite or discrimination.

JeffUK (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep she's constantly on British front pages, even if not doing much, and will remain so for several decades. She's 4th in line to the throne of a large democratic country. As for "her parents have been largely successful in their attempts to keep her out of the public eye", this would be more convincing if her mother didn't keep taking photos of her and releasing them to the press. The article has had 8.5 million views since 2015. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"She's constantly on British front pages, even if not doing much" But isn't this mostly gossip and paparazzi shots? having her face on the front page does not mean significant coverage. JeffUK (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their reason for covering her is inherited, but coverage is coverage and she gets it from respectable news sources every time she has a birthday, starts school, etc. That's personal notability, not simply inherited notability. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her parents' desire to keep her and her siblings out of the public eye is great, but that doesn't circumvent the fact that, unlike her Wessex cousins, and even unlike her Sussex cousins, her notability will continue to grow as her grandfather, father and older brother ascend the throne. Her parents don't confer notability on her, but her status as a British princess does. You probably would've had a better argument if you'd chosen Lady Louise Windsor rather than the daughter of the future king of the United Kingdom. Piratesswoop (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree her notability may grow in the future, meriting an article when it has grown. And "her status as a British princess" is not notability, it's just a different way of saying 'Who her parents are', therefore invalid justification for a bio. JeffUK (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: clearly notable. And apart from all the routine coverage of her every public appearance, there's the fact that she's the first princess to be above a brother in the line of succession after the removal of male primogeniture rules. PamD 09:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very clearly notable. Fourth in line to the throne. Huge coverage. All senior members of the British royal family are very obviously notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes GNG for having significant coverage in reliable sources. Also worth noting that they are 4th in line for the throne, I think that alone would make her pass GNG. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 22:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly has enough coverage to meet GNG. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She got enough coverage in the news. Her brothers have their own bios on Wikipedia. Also, she's the highest among females in the succession, who can't be passed over by a younger brother. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bad nomination. Obviously meet WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SNOW close. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, I was asking in good faith to see if there was any sort of consensus, very clearly not! Can I retract/close this myself or do we need to ask for someone? JeffUK (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - As nominee I'm withdrawing this. I'll remove the note from the article page to tidy it up, clearly no-one else is convinced of my logic! I don't think there's any ongoing discussions etc. so I don't think this is inappropriate as per WP:WITHDRAW JeffUK (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't remove it next time, because the AFD message contains code that goes onto the talk page when the nomination is closed. Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 13 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 (withdrawn). Nevermind, I just found that multiple journal articles mention the town. I'll add some citations to the article. (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Belbel[edit]

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

Unsourced, one-line stub about an Algerian town. The town does seem to exist, as it can be found on Google Maps and on the GEOnet Names Server. Neither of those satisfy WP:GEOLAND, however, and I cannot find any reliable source that mentions the town. Lennart97 (talk) 22:27, 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 keep. Passes WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 22:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McLeod (academic)[edit]

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

With all my sincere desire to have more academics especially women on Wiki, I still think the subject of the article fails notability guidelines. As an academic the citation rates are pretty low, the awards listed don't seem to be major, the coverage is mainly on related sources the majority of which use the same text. I failed to find in depth coverage in IRS. Less Unless (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At least one of her books has been the subject of significant secondary coverage, although it was a joint work (she edited the volume and, I believe, contributed the introduction and one chapter):
    1. Wilson, Kristina (Spring–Summer 2006). "Charlotte Perriand: An Art of Living by Mary McLeod; Charlotte Perriand: A Life of Creation —An Autobiography by Charlotte Perriand". Studies in the Decorative Arts. 13 (2): 111–115. doi:10.1086/studdecoarts.13.2.40663276. JSTOR 40663276.
    2. Naegele, Daniel (Spring 2006). "Book Review: Perriand, Charlotte. Charlotte Perriand: A Life of Creation (New York: The Monacelli Press, 2003) and McLeod, Mary. Charlotte Perriand: An Art of Living (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2003)". Harvard Design Magazine. 24: 113–117.
    3. Darling, Elizabeth (2004). "Charlotte Perriand: An Art of Living by Mary McLeod; Erno Goldfinger: The Life of an Architect by Nigel Warburton". Journal of Design History. 17 (4): 419–422. doi:10.1093/jdh/17.4.419. JSTOR 3527006.
    These go towards WP:NAUTHOR. Being named a fellow of the Society of Architectural Historians may help satisfy WP:NPROF, too. pburka (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, keep. There are only about 50 living fellows of the SAH (see [2]), so she appears to meet WP:NPROF#3. pburka (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe that WP:NPROF crit 3 is met here. Curbon7 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Convinced she passes WP:NPROF and she is a subject matter expert in her field. She's the co-founder of the Pioneering Women of American Architecture website which was featured in Architect and Architectural Digest[3]. She's been interviewed, featured or cited in publications including:
And many more.... Missvain (talk) 18:53, 16 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 23:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainocentrism[edit]

Ukrainocentrism (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 WP:ESSAY is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or both. It has been returned to Draft pace once already. If I had returned it there unilaterally it would be move warring, thus it is here, and AfD. I am not arguing for draftification. It is not an encyclopaedic article. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protypon[edit]

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

Unsourced school stub. The website is not working (defunct?) and as such I can't figure out exactly what kind of school this "Greek school" is (was?). But in any case, I can't find any coverage of it to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Lennart97 (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no sources, no major work on it (excluding bots) for years, very likely not notable. Nowhere to merge and redirect to and little point to draftify. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 23:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything about this that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Even using it's full name Protypon Peiraikon. The name really doesn't help, but whatever. Going by what I could find it looks like an extremely small hole in the wall school anyway. So I doubt it's had any coverage outside of local special interest articles if even that. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (t) 04:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nakunta River[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nakunta River (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 was last AFD'd in 2009 by User:Fences and windows and pretty much everything they wrote in their 2009 nom was basically correct on this: there is nothing that can be written about this river as no sources give it anything more than a passing mention. The sources cited in the article are a link to mapcarta that does not obviously show the river (linking to Mapcarta actually triggered the block filter on Wikipedia, which tells you all you need to know about the quality of that source), a tour guide that only briefly mentions the river, and an atlas (i.e., a map). Per WP:NGEO maps cannot establish the notability of a geographic feature. The other sources provided in the 2009 AFD are all passing mentions or maps. A search in GBooks and similar sources also failed to turn up anything but passing mentions. The 2009 keep !voters were under the impression that Wikipedia is a gazetteer per se and that any geographic feature should have an article - but Wikipedia is not a gazetteer (it might have features of one, but that's a different thing) and we do not have articles about non-notable geographic features just because they exist. For the record, had I seen this in 2009 I might well have voted the same way as them, so this is not a judgement on the keep !voters. FOARP (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s a blast from the past! According to WP:GEOLAND, because we only know the name and location of this minor geographical feature and no further information is available despite good faith attempts to find it then we should merge what little information is here and redirect to another article, preserving the categories: I suggest targeting this to Caratasca Lagoon, as this river is part of that drainage basin and the lagoon is indeed notable. There's no article about this river on the Spanish Wikipedia as might be expected were Spanish-language sources covering it and the one on the Portuguese Wikipedia is no better than ours. For others hoping to find sources, please try these terms: (nargunta OR nacunta OR nakunta) (rio OR River). I wish you luck, but I had none. Fences&Windows 01:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fences and windows. I just realised that my pinging of you might be interpreted as WP:CANVASS so for balance I will ping all the other 2009 participants: @Carlossuarez46, Reyk, DGG, BalthCat, Drmies, John Z, Chrajohn, Mandsford, Nyttend, Milowent, and Joe Chill:. Apologies if this is of no interest guys. FOARP (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have only the faintest memory of this very ancient AfD but I think I agree with my younger self. This is one of those horrendous little microstubs that appear when completionism meets a total lack of content. I'd say the best thing to do is merge/redirect into a list of Honduras geographical features. Alternatively Caratasca Lagoon, as suggested by F&W, sounds to me like a good option. Reyk YO! 09:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Caratasca as nom per Fences and Windows. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While this editor is now kinder and gentler than he was in 2009, I still weep for those who lack the curiosity to become fluent in Spanish and travel to the libraries in Tegucigalpa to find additional sourcing for this article. Such as the informative "Monografia de las cuencas de los Rios Ibantara, Guarunta, Nakunta y Cruta"[4] published in 1988 by R. H. Stover. I added a few more sources and a map of the outlet area nonetheless. Wikipedia's coverage of some areas of the world is still sparse after 20 years of development. For example, the village of Mocorón in this area (which lays west of the Nakunta basin) clearly has long existed and been written about, but we have no article on it, only one on the nearby airport.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort here Milowent but the sources added appear to be passing mentions - refugees camped near the river, a bridge will be built over the river, in both cases the subject is not the river nor is the river really discussed at all. Whilst I too greatly regret that we will not have the benefit of reading the words of the great Stover, it seems (from my lamentably poor Spanish) that the topic may have been somewhat tangential to the river itself. It seems the GNG pass we're looking for is out of our grasp. FOARP (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a lot of effort to find those, I am sure there is more to be found. That one book appears to be a study of the basins of four rivers (including the Nakunta). As a practical matter, I can't imagine how Wikipedia is benefited by not having an article on this river vs. merging the identical content into some sub-heading under the stub for Caratasca Lagoon, which everyone seems to be agree is notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. references have been added. They are enough of a basis for a stub. If we found two sources here in a few hours, there will be more. For example, have we looked at school textbooks used in the country? The only hope of making this information generally available is to accumulate it in WP Presumably there are WPedians in Honduras--have we tried to contactthem? DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been up since 2009 and already went through AFD once before with only passing mentions found. As no ES Wiki article exists, it seems our Honduran colleagues have not attempted an article, though the Honduras project has been notified. FOARP (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion nomination goes on about Mapcarta as if to suggest the river might not really exist at all, but Rio Nakunta label shows in Google maps and other maps, so lay that to rest. The info in the article, that it is more than 100km long etc., and sources found, suffice. Of course there exists more in Spanish language in the country. --Doncram (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above argument. Sonofstar (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References have been added to satisfy GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:46, 15 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) 23:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CoinSwitch Kuber[edit]

CoinSwitch Kuber (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 company hinging on funding related or other similar announcements. No WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is pretty much written like an advertisement for the company. Also the grammar used on the page is not at suitable for WP GyanKnow contributions? 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this company has some very high profile investors. --Devokewater (talk) 09:57, 13 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 No valid deletion rationale advanced. Improper forum for discussion of the accuracy of the article. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori[edit]

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

Hello, my name is Uma Sori and I am the direct descendent from the family of Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori. My continual attempts to add what is factual in my country of birth Morovia Liberia of the lineage and biological relationships of my cousins from the United States, Dr. Artemus Gaye and Princess Karen Chatman who is born in Natchez Mississippi, and underwent genetic testing proving her lineage. Dr. Gaye inherited his Royal title as with any other family of Royal lineage. Why is it that Gaye and Chatman are being challenged by a group of people? What facts other than a book written by Terry Alford who receive his story directly from the Collins, Fosters, and residence of Natchez who has known the stories for hundreds of years. I solicited your assistance if I am not citing information correctly, as this is not my area of expertise. Prince Sori's story is one of significance to the African American population, one that they are proud of. I need your help in ensuring our family legacy is not destroyed or forgotten. My apologies if I have caused duress but again, this is my family's legacy but the story belongs to the world.

The page should be deleted if it does not allow for the acknowledgment of Prince Sori's descendents. It is not about ownership, it is about not allowing history forgotten.

Respectfully, Uma Sori — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uma971 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this point all the arguments are for delete except for one conditional transwikify, and there is no evidence that the condition is met. Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terra pericolosa[edit]

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

Nothing more than a dictionary definition, and I don't see any potential for it becoming more than that. There's no doubt this term was used, but it doesn't seem to be a notable concept on its own, given the lack of significant coverage. An alternative deletion would be to merge it, maybe with Here be dragons - according to this article, terra pericolosa was normally used for the purpose that many people believe that hic sunt dracones was used (but it wasn't). Or into some kind of glossary of cartography, but we don't seem ot have that. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this were sourced, I would suggest merging into Here be dragons#History where alternative phrases are already discussed. But I cannot find a reference verifying that this was ever used in real cartography – only fictional stories and poems. SpinningSpark 08:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this article but I doubt it meets our reliability requirements. It is a one-woman site and I suspect that a lot of the information came from Wikipedia anyway. Although not a straight copy, there is some close paraphrasing and the depth of infomation is precisely what could be gleaned from various Wikipedia articles. In any event, no sources are listed. SpinningSpark 09:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed that this is the same article linked in the nom. SpinningSpark 09:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your remarks. Yes, I was a bit too optimistic when I said "there's no doubt this term was used"; I based that notion mostly on that article, which indeed isn't necessarily reliable. If we can in fact not verify that the term was ever used, I guess deletion is the only option. Lennart97 (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Transwikify to dictionary, if any one can establish that the term really exists. I have on one occasion had to write that an archaeological site (in woodland) contains upcapped mine shafts and that people should accordingly not attempt to enter it (which would amount to trespass anyway). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh it really exists, just not as a genuine historic cartography term. Wiktionary requires neither notability nor reliability of sources, merely that they use the term and are "durably archived". But this would have a few other problems at Wiktionary. First of all, as a Wiktionary entry, our article is "too encyclopaedic" (ie too long) as well as apparently being an inaccurate definition. More importantly, phrases are not allowed on Wiktionary that are merely sum-of-parts. One would have to be able to argue that a user could not divine the meaning from the entries for terra and pericolosa alone. It's generally best to write Wiktionary pages from scratch rather than dump a transwikied Wikipedia article there. The former usually goes down a lot better. SpinningSpark 23:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's certainly any amount of transferred use of the term - [5],[6], [7] - all of which assume the stated cartographic origin; but I can't find any authoritative discussion of where it comes from and whether it really was in use. Given the age of our article, it's entirely possible that e.g. the source noted in the OP is based on WP rather than anything better founded. No dictionary entries, except one that openly cites WP. It really doesn't look as if there is sufficient sourcing to even include this as a mention at Here be dragons. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that it is a made up term used by fiction writers and artists. It therefore falls under WP:NOTDIC. I'll withdraw that if there is any evidence forthcoming that it is a genuine cartographic term, or there is otherwise sources substantially discussing its use in art/literature. SpinningSpark 02:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find a reliable source discussing the phrase in any depth (as Spinningspark said, the Geographyrealm source is questionable). It doesn't seem to appear in any published dictionary from what I could find online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to be clear: as the nominator, though initially suggesting a merge, I am now also in favour of deletion based on the points brought up above. Lennart97 (talk) 13:32, 17 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aligner[edit]

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

unexplained revert to it's original spammy and unsourced state. This is all covered in the target article and thus should be reverted there unless someone can provide compelling sources that demonstrate that it is independently notable with adequate sourcing PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The nom claims that "This is all covered in the target article". How one might conclude this remains a mystery to me, as the nom article is about a widely used device in semiconductor manufacturing, while the target article is about orthodontia. I'm also at a loss as to what is remotely "spammy" about it or the "unsourced" claim given the two refs. This topic is covered in every single book on micro fabrication that one finds in a search. The nom has also complained that the RVs is unexplained, yet there is half a page of text about it on the noms talk page. Moreover, a declined BLAR, the "unexplained revert", shouldn't be BLARed again, yet that happened here as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truly adorable that you think those are in depth coverage of this topic. We don't accept self-published medical/scientific papers as evidence of notability much less fact. Cheers though. Also might've been helpful if you cited any actual sources instead of using a single promotional source in your revert. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Self published? Medical/scientific papers? These are all books on micro fabrication, published by companies like Elsevier, McGraw Hill, Wiley and Springer. I have no idea what you are talking about. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a pretty solid article, just poorly-referenced. I believe I've found a couple of independent references that could be added to the article:
What is a mask aligner? | Semiconductor Photo Lithography - Inseto, 1 July 2020
Mask Aligner and Exposure Station - IMC - The University of Memphis - University of Memphis, 7 August 2019
Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a brief but well-written article about an old technology that – judging from Maury Markowitz's sources above – is fairly well known in the semiconductor industry. How the nominator arrived at the conclusion that the article was unsourced or spammy, or why they believed its content should instead be covered within an article about dental braces, is beyond comprehension. – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the strangest nominations I've ever seen, and the nominator should feel embarrassed to be acting smug and passive-aggressive when basically everything they've said has been wrong. Calling a completely NPOV article "spammy," violating policy by reverting a contested BLAR, suggesting that the article be redirected to an article about a completely different topic, and asserting that books written by experts in the field and published by prestigious publishers aren't reliable sources. Saying that the material on the page "is all covered in the target article" when the target article is on a different topic is so utterly baffling and nonsensical that I cannot think of any logical explanation that doesn't involve rank incompetence. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Mlb96 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mlb96:, going through their recent contributions gives me cause for concern. Lots of rude commentary and unneccesarily adversarial interactions, along with 3 recent redirections seemingly to avoid an AfD discussion makes me think that bringing this user to ANI might be appropriate. 142.157.234.234 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, and wp:trout the user. Even a cursory BEFORE search reveals extensive discussion on this piece of semiconductor fabrication history. 142.157.205.205 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
edit: astonished to see nominator is praxidicae - usually much higher quality work comes from this user! One wonders if they have been compromised somehow! 142.157.205.205 (talk) 00:14, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Eye Productions[edit]

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

PROD removed by COI editor, but I'll play along and just send this to AfD. No indication whatsoever of notability, with only company links. There's four short sentences in one reliable source (from 2011) that I'll add, but that's not enough for notability. Please see history for material added by User:Jason Knight Urbanski, which I reverted because the citations were not to reliable sources, and the text was promotional. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 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. ✗plicit 11:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blake Kruse[edit]

Michael Blake Kruse (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 notability guidelines. Out of all the refs only 1 is more or less acceptable. No significant coverage found. Also fails WP:NACTOR. Less Unless (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - minor actor in minor roles. Absolutely no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Being mentioned as a cast member in Variety does nothing to establish notability. Being discussed in his hometown paper does not establish notability whatsoever when that hometown has a population of under 3,000. The links to actor compendiums and resumes do not establish notability (and most are dead links). The festivals where Swim won awards are not major or in themselves notable. Swim itself is a very minor short film. Ultimately, just a lot of really weak sources. And a lot of bad sourcing is just the same as no sourcing at all. Fails GNG, NACTOR ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject has had one main role in a film, so he falls shy of the WP:NACTOR threshold. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, either. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 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 redirect to Nest Family Entertainment. Clear consensus below the article shouldn't be retained. However, no consensus about whether to merge or not, so splitting down the middle and redirecting. If anyone wants to merge using their own editorial judgement, they're welcome to. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Hero Classics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Animated Hero Classics (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 TV series. Dronebogus (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selectively Merge to Nest Family Entertainment The previous AfD was almost fifteen years ago giving it little to no precedential value. That it was considered improved enough to demonstrate notability when a bunch of IMDB links were added is good evidence of just how the perception of notability has changed in that time. The only references in the article are to a pair of subject matter encyclopedias and there seems to be no evidence available that this series had any kind of impact. The supposed list of awards and endorsements are essentially meaningless as none of them are recognized as important in the field of childhood education or entertainment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’d recommend just redirecting them. If this closes as “no consensus” I’m going to do that since there’s been no improvement in forever and the one recent “keep” vote wasn’t willing to do the level of research required to prove notability. Not sure it’s worth the trouble anyway since the series doesn’t appear to have had much of an impact. Dronebogus (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or redirect/merge to a topic suggested above. My BEFORE only found a brief mention in a Chinese academic paper at [8] (not open access, see snippet in Google Scholar). I think we have a ton of movie/TV cruft to clean up - not every media of those types is notable, unfortunately. Ping me if better sources are found. SOFTDELETE is preferable is possible (redirect with preserving history). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the article has no citations, and there is no real effort to cover the series' reception or impact. I would tag it as a hoax article, as even ther episode list has no citations. Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The series exists, a simple image search proves that. I also vaguely recall I might’ve watched it as a kid. So at least it’s not a hoax. Dronebogus (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the WP:GNG threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:09, 19 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 11:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hayes (actor)[edit]

Phil Hayes (actor) (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:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor does not automatically get an instant notability freebie just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test is not in the list of roles per se, but in the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate the significance of those roles: critical analysis about his performances, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major acting awards, and on and so forth. But the only discernible notability claim here is that roles were had, and the only references are IMDb-style directories of voice actors which are not reliable or notability-assisting sources, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:55, 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. ✗plicit 11:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pathways Schools[edit]

Pathways 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)

Another non-notable school in India with much of the sourcing coming from the school's website, a site that mentions the school in passing, or a promotional article. Nothing really about the notability of the school. It should be noted that the article creator, now blocked permanently, has a similar name as the school for their username. Clearly a conflict of interest. The article has no bearing to remain as is. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The sources provided by Tedder clearly aren't enough to get it over the bar and I couldn't find anything else, usable or otherwise either. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot Phillips[edit]

Cabot Phillips (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:DEL-REASON 8: This article does not meet the notability criteria WP:Bio

The primary reason for notability as suggested by the contents of the article would seem to be as that of a journalist; however, outside of the Zombie Apocalypse video many of the references seem to be OR, or are not intellectually independent of the subject.

The article is linked to only by the articles for the subject's first name and surname articles, the article for the subject's father, and an election article in an "Endorsements by Notable Individuals" section. None of these seem to indicate significance of the subject.

Wikipedia is not a resume, and it appears possible the subject has been involved in editing this page: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabot_Phillips&diff=prev&oldid=780488305&diffmode=source>. The header photo supplied was from the path 
/Users/Cabot/Desktop/Cabot Phillips headshot.png
BlackBrantX (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BlackBrantX (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BlackBrantX (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What a catch! That is evidence of someone editing whose personal computer login is "Cabot". The article doesn't indicate any particular notability. Having had some coverage in media doesn't mean he's notable. Notable for what? One doesn't inherit notability from their employers, and that's about all he's got at this point. Platonk (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 17:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NBIO. To summarize the citations: bio from his employer and a bio from staff directory (both rank as self-published), Cabot's own compilation of his own sound bites on the telly (primary source, possibly a copyvio source), a right-wing advocacy group gives him an online award in 2016 as an up-and-coming person in the advocacy (pat on the back to encourage future notability), a personal prank on a family member. I'm just not seeing the notability. Too many editors on Wikipedia seem to think that because someone "was written about" on the internet that they are notable. There's a little more judgment involved. Delete as non-notable. Platonk (talk) 21:05, 15 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 23:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Pradip[edit]

R. J. Pradip (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:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:Promotional, subject has no contribution to the field they claim to be. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 15:08, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mageborn[edit]

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

Article about a fantasy novel series, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for books. The notability claim here is that the series exists, there's no indication whatsoever of the kind of distinctions (noteworthy literary awards, significant critical attention, etc.) that it takes to bridge the existence vs. notability gap, the article is referenced entirely to the author's own self-published website and GoodReads profile rather than any evidence whatsoever of notability-building coverage in real reliable sources, and the cherry on top is that even the author doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article at all. (And while that isn't an instant speedy deletion criterion for books the way it is for musical albums, it is still a useful gauge of the article's prospects for salvageability.) Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 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. ✗plicit 23:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Coon[edit]

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

The article is an attack page created by an undisclosed paid editing operation, using Locality Labs spam websites as sources. I think it needs WP:TNT. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Brent Coon for further information. MarioGom (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion at BLPN. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:44, 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 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, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhar Garg[edit]

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

Appears to be a non notable badminton player. Participated in several Grand Prix events, but never got past initial rounds. Per WP:NBAD, participation at the highest level of tournaments like Olympic Games, World Championships is considered. For Grand Prix, Superseries and World Tour atleast a medal is considered which means a final appearance atleast. zoglophie 14:19, 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. ✗plicit 23:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Murphys[edit]

The Murphys (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:NBAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. 1 looks okay, 2 and 5 are just short announcements (although 2 states they have several hit songs), and the other two require subscriptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 26 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) 23:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. they don't have too much news coverage and they don't meet WP:BAND. Chelokabob (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not convinced from my own research nor that presented above that they meet WP:GNG nor WP:BAND. Missvain (talk) 19:07, 16 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 14:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Jassim[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Was saved from PROD some time ago when Iraq was briefly considered fully-pro league (apparently prematurely). BlameRuiner (talk) 13:35, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Street & Wall Street[edit]

Erin Street & Wall Street (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 unremarkable streets in Winnipeg. Unsourced since forever, no claims of notability are made in the article, and there's no coverage to be found. Lennart97 (talk) 13:26, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Rotawan[edit]

Devika Rotawan (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 appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. The individual is covered almost exclusively for her role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks and her reaction to it in its aftermath, she otherwise remains likely to be a low-profile individual, and it's not clear that she had a particularly significant role in the attack (she was a victim of a crime and served as a witness in the ensuing trial). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 26 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) 05:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannigma[edit]

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

Does not meet NCORP. The only citations that are nominally independent do not provide the in-depth coverage or intellectual independence that is expected for notability. (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not significant. Free1Soul (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 22:15, 15 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 11:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interlake Logistics Solutions[edit]

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

Corporate subsidiary does not meet WP:NCORP- not separately notable from the parent company Interlake Maritime Services. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Aside from the lead of the article being gibberish, there is no demonstration of the subject's notability at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Does not meet WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 03:27, 15 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 and split/rename into List of World War I U-boat commanders and List of World War II U-boat commanders Consensus is against retaining the "most successful" and "ranking" portions of the article, but retaining (if revising) the content as sortable lists. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of most successful U-boat commanders[edit]

List of most successful U-boat commanders (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 is the only list like this on the English Wikipedia. That would in itself not disqualify it from existence, but compare to the closest topic area, fighter aces. None of them use this title format (ex: List of World War II aces from China). Next ask yourself, "Can this not be part of a greater "List of submarine commanders", or a series of them by war and nation?" Do we really need to have this big temple to the German military here? ♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Split per Clarityfiend with removal of the SYNTH ranking. Current article fails WP:LISTN and is the result of considerable WP:SYNTH especially the ranking. This seems to be entirely modelled off and sources from one website. I can only find one limited source that comes anywhere close to this kind of grouping and ranking and I do not think this justifies the article. Listcruft and warcruft. On a personal note, I find this list quite disgusting in the way it speaks about the killing of humans as 'top-scoring' like a video game - leading me to have a preference for a Speedy Delete. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete Per the nom and @Vladimir.copic Fails WP:LISTN as this WP:OR list doesn't meaningfully exist in the real world, it's just a WP:SYNTH compilation using original ranking criteria. Given that the article discuses the killing of real human beings as if this is about a video game, I agree that it has no place on Wikipedia and should be removed as soon as possible. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:Vladimir.copic. Listcruft.Split per Clarityfiend below Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uboat.net is fairly reliable (there was a discussion on this at Milhist) and they give their sources here. Tonnage sunk is a fair marking of impact, and in histories I've read of submarine warfare the tonnage sunk is given in the same way as pilot's shootdowns. There was a question over whether tonnage sunk accrues to commanders or the ships which led to a change in Milhist 'policy'. I note there is a parallel list at List of most successful German U-boats which is much shorter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Most successful U-boats" is still not ideal, but it would be far more in-line (and accurate, as it would include the contributions of the crew) than "Most successful U-boat captains". The name still insults the dignity of the deceased, however. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfect valid list. This is what they are known for. [14] Anywhere that mentions them mentions these stats. Need more references to the article though. The first guy has a reference in his article to how many ships he sunk, but its not in English so I can't read it. The second guy has no references to that information at all, and just one reference in the entire article. This information should be referenced in the articles as well as here in the list article. I see 60 people listed total and only 52 references. I would assume any books about U-boats would have a list like this in them. Dream Focus 18:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We need reliable sources discussing this as a group and ranking the list in the way this article does to meet WP:LISTN as well as to avoid the WP:SYNTH currently on this page. My WP:BEFORE didn't give anything, what did yours turn up? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename it List of U-boat commanders and list all those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. They are already listed at Category:U-boat commanders. Valid navigational list and provides more information than a category would. Dream Focus 00:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Why don't we just merge into the existing lists on these pages? Occam's razor and all. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Not the same thing. This article is for the commanders of individual u-boats. That one is for listing their supreme commanders of the division all u-boats were in. Dream Focus 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah yes - my mistake. But as a certain editor often says: My vote! stands. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:LISTN as "most successful commanders" only appear to be discussed as a group on uboat.com. Thus the page fails WP:SYNTH. uboat.net is a user-generated, self-published site; unlike Wikipedia, uboat.net does not cite individual statements, so it's even less verifiable than Wikipedia. The list is not necessary since Category:U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine), and a similar cat for WWI commanders, does a fine job of producing an on-demand list. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the second paragraph at WP:LISTN? The first paragraph reads: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. That's one reason, not the only acceptable reason. The second paragraph reads: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I would point to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Not necessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy is clear that you can have categories and lists for the same thing. Dream Focus 09:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into List of World War I U-boat commanders and List of World War II U-boat commanders and make the ships and tonnage sunk columns sortable. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per Clarityfiend. Perfectly valid lists of often notable individuals. Arguments that these should be deleted because they're nasty Nazicruft and insulting to the deceased should obviously be discounted as pure POV. These are facts and the subject of numerous studies, whether you like them or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This "facts not feelings" reply totally misses the point. These men are not notable because they killed dozens of men; they are notable because they were military commanders, and I and others as you can see above believe there are better ways to list and sort them than the amount of notches on their pistols. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, it’s the ranking form of this article that I believe is WP:SYNTH and only reflected on uboat.net with no other sources grouping like this. Unfair to reduce this to POV or IDONTLIKEIT. The “top-scoring” comment is juvenile and offensive but I said this was only my opinion. That being said Clarityfiend’s solution would fix this and I will change my vote accordingly. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with listing what they are famous for, how many ships they sunk. Same way with List of serial killers by number of victims, List of rampage killers, List of mass shootings in the United States, List of major terrorist incidents, and others of the sort. Just as the main article lists the kills, so do the list articles about it. Dream Focus 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, no, but a submarine captain is not Ted Bundy. A submarine commander is the commander of a military unit, and we can do better than a scoreboard. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename it List of U-boat commanders per Dream Focus. I share Necrothesp's objections to the first three delete votes that appear to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The mere assertion that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR is not convincing either. If it's not possible to reach a consensus, split per Clarityfiend. Renewal6 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split per Clarityfiend. Agree with Necrothesp re: the IDONTLIKEIT votes, and the assertion above that "'most successful commanders' only appear to be discussed as a group on uboat.com" is a baseless assertion betraying a complete lack of knowledge of the range of reliable sources on this subject in German and English. Exhaustive research and resulting books by notable submarine historians like Jürgen Rohwer, who was a professor of history at the University of Stuttgart: Axis Submarine Successes of World War Two: German, Italian, and Japanese Submarine Successes, 1939-1945 (1999) has even more detail than this list on notable WWII U-boat commanders and their successes, as well as analysis of same. He wasn't some fanboi, he was a serious historian who obviously thought this stuff mattered. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commander, as it appears the consensus is now to keep but alter the list, and the topic will likely expand to submariners of other nations, are you aware of sources for submariners for other navies? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as a similar article on submariners of other navies does not exist it should not be the topic of this AfD discussion. Renewal6 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Renewal6: You misunderstand my question; look again at my nomination statement. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • A list of submarine commanders attempting to include all commanders of all navies would obviously be too extensive. You'll be free to create a similar article on American or Japanese submarine commanders, if you're able to provide reliable sources and if you're interested in a series of them by war and nation. However, as long as it does not exist we should not discuss merging or renaming this article here on the basis of it. Renewal6 (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, total tonnage sunk is one criteria for listing, but there are others, like being a Knight’s Cross holder. —Nug (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of German submarine commanders. To be successful is too subjective, not a fact. The list is about German commanders. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per the Wikipedia article on U-boats, "U-boats were naval submarines operated by Germany, particularly in the First and Second World Wars." Why should it not be explicit enough to rename it List of U-boat commanders? Renewal6 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The question of whether the ranking criteria are OR needs more discussion; splitting wouldn't resolve that. Editos should also discuss whether removing the ranking, making it a mere alphabetical list, would resolve the problem as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I and somebody else suggested was taking out the "most successful" bit from the list (or lists). That takes care of the OR issue. The number of ships/tonnage sunk is documented. If someone did want to rank them, then letting them sort by those two columns (maybe number of patrols too?) would do the trick. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Clarityfiend Proposal. All "Most successful" bunk should be axed, and the list should be renamed and broken in half for the two World Wars. The lists should be ordered alphabetically by default, but use sortable tables and include details such as the date as a submarine commanders were active as such and tonnage sunk. For non-sortable columns, include submarines commanded by that individual. Let these new lists stand as examples for other submarine commander lists. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I additionally propose that awards should not be mentioned on these lists, and that they should not include the word "U-boat" in the title. That distinction should not be made because it is a tomato tomatoe situation. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: We would stumble into WP:OR with a mere alphabetical list, because it would suggest to the reader that all the included persons are treated equally by the sources, which is obviously not the case. Your additional proposal that awards should be removed from the list does not appear to be policy-based, but based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Excluding "U-boat" from the title had already been suggested by My very best wishes, see above. Renewal6 (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by the idea that alphabetical ordering by surname would be OR. It would be NPOV. My objection to inclusion of military awards is an objection to WP:SIZE bloat, which tables are prone to. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ranking is based on facts discussed by reliable sources other than uboat.net, and it does not contain a personal opinion on the achievements of the German military. Hence, it does not violate WP:NPOV. It would be borderline OR to withhold the ranking from the reader, because the inclusion criteria for the list are directly connected to it. Otherwise, it may appear as though we present a list of 50 WW2 U-boat commanders that we arbitrarily consider to be the most notable. Objections to WP:SIZE are fine, but I think it's more reasonable to discuss them at the talk page of the article. Too many additional proposals on how to change the article just make it harder to reach a consensus on the actual topic of the AfD debate. Renewal6 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A sortable table allows the table to be sorted however the reader wants it to be sorted, which is why I suggested it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on this point (see below). Renewal6 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière and Otto Kretschmer are clearly referred to as the #1 U-boat commanders based on their tonnage sunk by reliable sources. Neither the ranking criteria nor the statistics they depend on are an invention of Wikipedia or uboat.net, so the list fulfills WP:NOR. Because of that, I would oppose removing the ranking itself, but support making the ships and tonnage sunk columns sortable. I agree with Clarityfiend that renaming the article by leaving out "most successful" resolves the legitimate WP:OR issues with the title format. Renewal6 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per Clarityfiend. This is is a SYNTH list, and combining the performance of commanders in two different wars has no basis in the sources. Probably only done because the Germans happened to call their ships "U-boats" during the both conflicts, and that's not enough. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as topic is notable, but it needs renamingJackattack1597 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Always necessary to read through an article's history before beginning a deletion process. It was merged in 2008 with an article called "List of U-Boat Aces." Then renamed "List of Successful U-Boat Commanders," then renamed "List of Most Successful U-Boat Commanders" as the page only listed "top scorers." That answers your first question. Content-wise, rename it again if necessary, but it meets notability; this is an important piece of history and encyclopedic content. "List of U-Boat Commanders" could be good, as Renewal6 has proposed. Knightoften (talk) 04:31, 12 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 is that the subject is notable, but the article needs significant cleanup. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Benayoun[edit]

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

Sourcing for this biographical article all comes from either associated/autobiographical sources, or trivial mentions. There are a few books cited with slightly longer mentions (a couple pages out of 700, for example), but these are about one of his artworks and are not biographical, so I think they don't help the case for notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NARTIST isn't met as far as I can tell. For background, this article is very promotional and was originally written by a co-worker of Benayoun's and most substantive expansions appear to have some from other WP:SPAs. I think it is promotional enough that it might be a case for WP:TNT even if the artist is found to be notable. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see MrOllie's comments and I already replied on the Talk page of the article.
    As there are more precise arguments here, and I wouldn't like to have been contributing to parts of this article for nothing, it is important to reply. It is true that the list of references and publications is not sufficient. Cleary bibliography hasn't been updated for a while, and this should be done. Google books list more than 800 books mentioning MB's work. Among them are monographs one of them includes around 20 articles written by notable authors on MB's work. The list of awards is less than half of the ones on his website. This includes the Golden Nica and 4 Prix Ars Electronica awards.
    More than 200 people produced 500+ contributions over 14 years. If this article is deleted I guess most of the contributors won't spend more time for anything. It will be a mere deletion of the artist on Wikipedia. Does it make sense to erase all this work? Regarding the argument about an early contributor as a collaborator. If you check the talk page, you see that she clearly mentioned that she was in touch with MB and she immediately proceeded to the adequate corrections. This was in 2007, and apparently, she collaborated with him on a project in 2012. Nobody apparently found facts that are inaccurate.
    For me, the AFD is a disproportionate action when a mere improvement of the article would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.214.222.86 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is notable (a Golden Nica at Ars Electronica is a major award) , but the article should be completely re-written to reflect what independent, reliable sources say about Benayoun. The burden of this kind of cleanup should fall to the editors who want the un- or under-sourced text included. Reduce the article to a stub, then start over. Vexations (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify - The artist is notable per WP:NARTIST however the article is problematic and should be pruned back to a stub. Clearly there are overt WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues; editors connected with the artist should stop editing it. 95% of the content belongs on his website, not here. All unsourced material, peacock terms and excessive detail should be deleted, as these are unencyclopedic. TNT is another option I would support; it could be d*leted an recreated in a more appropriate form by a completely unconnected editor. Netherzone (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Vexations assessment. Recently a similarly poorly written promotional article was moved back to draft. The article as it stands is really a mess, starting with "Born in Mascara, Algeria, in March 1957, as a war orphan." with no citation (and how is one born an orphan???). Because it is so poorly written and sourced it should be moved off the main space. Then some one who cares can clean it up in the draft space. 144.214.222.86's argument that the article has been around for a long time, with many contributors and therefor should be kept is not valid. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article is clearly too detailed, with an excessive list of accomplishments. As a media art scholar, I'm fine with contributing to a profound revision, together with the people interested in improving it, cutting excessive info (I guess about 50% can be removed), more neutral rewording, and adding adequate references. This may take at least 2 weeks as it is not easy to find good sources. As the fact of Benayoun as "a war orphan" was mentioned in the discussion, I checked online and found that Benayoun's father died 4 months before his birth during the Algerian war (took 1 hour to find combined with genealogy sites) [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.214.222.86 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.memoiredeshommes.sga.defense.gouv.fr/fr/arkotheque/client/mdh/guerre_algerie_combats_maroc_tunisie/detail_fiche.php?ref=1575752&debut=0
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The title may be redirected at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalls, Gauteng[edit]

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

Unsourced one line stub about a supposed suburb of Johannesburg. I can't find any mention of it online apart from wikimirrors and it's not on Google Maps either. I wonder if there's somehow a mixup with Marshalltown, Johannesburg. Lennart97 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unreferenced and not even clear what it refers to. Says its in Region 8 (i.e., the inner city district of Jo'burg) but no other source consulted says it has such a neighbourhood. Even if it could be proved that this exists, this appears to be a totally non-notable (and likely unofficial) neighbourhood. High time these completely unreferenced GeoStubs were fixed. FOARP (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Marshalltown, Johannesburg. I've seen Marshalltown incorrectly being spelled as Marshallstown or Marshalls Town so I would strongly suspect that Marshalls could refer to Marshalltown, Johannesburg (a slang term perhaps, or some kind of bug in an automated tool that created the article?).Park3r (talk) 03:19, 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 delete. Consensus to delete, suggestion that it should be moved to draft space because he will be a senior international soon is purely speculative. Fenix down (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rostam Islam Dukhu Mia[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone:  Done GiantSnowman 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Can this article be moved to a draft space to avoid deletion?FNH004 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FNH004 have you got any evidence that he passes GNG? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify-He has played for the u-15 side[1] and recently been called up for the u23 team this year[2].He also made his league debut at 15(which is apparently his age) last season(which just finished a few months ago) so it's pretty evident that he is a future senior team player since he made his way through most age level teams and made his senior club debut at only 15 which is why I suggest that this article to be moved to a draft space until he becomes a full international which is evidently pretty soon.FNH004 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.jagonews24.com/en/sports/news/42365
  2. ^ https://www.dhakatribune.com/sport/2021/09/24/england-based-yusuf-named-in-bangladesh-u-23-side
  • Draftify - strong changes of meeting NFOOTBALL soon. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striked out my vote. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:31, 15 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. Consensus to delete, suggestion that it should be moved to draft space because he will be a senior international soon is purely speculative, and no real significant coverage indicated in the discussion below to suggest a wider GNG pass is likely either now or in the near future. Fenix down (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hakim Bappy[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seeing that the page creator did the draft move, they shouldn't be able to move it back to the mainspace as they will need to request the move through WP:RM. It might be the best compromise as this could be closed as a no quorum in which this can be brought back to AfD if the article for whatever reason does not get improved when moved from draftspace. – The Grid (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, I would still want to see some sort of demonstration of notability before allowing it to be draftified. Draft space shouldn't be for non-notable topics but, in the context of footballers, it's usually used for footballers who are on the verge of becoming notable (e.g. only recently signed for a team in a fully pro league) or footballers who are clearly notable but where the article just needs work. I'm not sure if either of those really apply here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved back to mainspace. GiantSnowman 18:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- can this article be moved to the draft space for further improvement and to avoid deletion??FNH004 (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftifty - will potentially meet NFOOTBALL in next year or so. No need deleting. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't draftify per WP:CRYSTAL. Geschichte (talk) 18:31, 12 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. This debate obviously has caused fractures across the wider community, in other places than simply this discussion page.

In assessing the discussion, I have discarded all !votes that purely related to procedural issues. Given the wide section of the community that came to take part in this discussion, the procedural issues are reduced in relevance. I hear their concerns, and if this was a poorly-attended debate - or one that did not have such a clear consensus - I would factor them in.

However, on the topic of content, there is a clear consensus to delete this article. Ultimately it has come down to an interpretation of our relevant notability guidelines, and there is a strong consensus that this article does not meet those requirements. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARS Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ARS Public School (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:RUN OF THE MILL school. Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 9 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 (☎) 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per discussion, and when an article goes on the rack twice and survives I would think that no further attempt should be made (should be a guideline or policy). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe in short succession, but multiple years apart no because that’s long enough for consensus to radically change. In very long term cases I’d recommend not factoring in the old AfDs at all since standards were radically different back in like 2007 for example. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. And school-articles have to prove their notability since the 2017-RFC. No guessing or canvassing, just proof. The Banner talk 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per myself twelve days ago, per myself four years ago. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per myself the last time I voted since nothing has changed about it's clear lack of notability since then. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE references to show that its notable now. If so, I'll change my "vote" to keep, but I doubt they can. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy who wrote the WP:THREE did explain that people kept misunderstanding his personal essay. Some people would post a dozen sources, and he said no one would look at that many, just post the three best ones and he'd look at that. You don't need Three references to prove notability, two is enough for that as the notability guideline page clearly states. Many are saying Wikipedia:Speedy keep because its a bad nomination. You can't just nominate something again right away because you didn't get the results you wanted. Dream Focus 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your point is since there isn't even two good references. Also, I didn't re-nominate the article, I probably wouldn't have, and I could care less about what the outcome was last time. So I don't know what your point with any of that is either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Now kept twice. Continual nomination is against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same with ignoring a consensus reached in an RFC. The Banner talk 13:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no consensus and it's not relevant to these discussions in any case. There was most certainly no consensus to delete all school articles because some editors don't like them. Neither was there a consensus to allow school articles to be nominated for deletion again and again until they get deleted (in fact, there was a specific clause advising against such behaviour). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, yes, the inevitable “they’re just haters” argument. Dronebogus (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict × 3) This school isn't notable simply because it exists. It's notable because its existence has been proved in secondary sources, which also provide some information about the school. I don't see how this isn't in accordance with the result of the RfC. Will the encyclopedia be improved by deleting this article? No. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to hear that you are still in denial over this, Necrothesp. The Banner talk 16:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No denial. Just the facts, which some choose to ignore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good to hear that you admit to ignore that RFC. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" a nomination two days after the previous one closed is excessive, in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two nominations this year is already flooding? It sounds more that you two are gaming the system. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone not getting the results they want nominating it again less than two days later, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wouldn't have been closed as no consensus if people on the keep side did the required research to find usable references and made actual arguments. Instead of just going off about nonsense like the AfD four years ago, that all schools are inherently notable, and people who nominate schools are trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever, rinse repeat, etc. etc. So that's totally on you guys for the generic, low effort "votes." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result of the 2017 RfC was no consensus, defaulting to status quo.

    Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

  • The status quo was that schools are notable if their existence is proved by a reliable, independent, secondary source. Which is the case here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the quote you cited refutes the RFC results being valid. The original statement posed in an RFC can be rejected but the broader discussion can still lead to a consensus to implement other things besides what was originally posed. Just like with ANI cases where the original proposal for sanctions is rejected but alternatives aren't. Neither is an "original statement or bust" type of thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The original statement was Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Sure implementing other things besides what was originally posed can happen. But the crux of the argument was what was initially posed. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Anything else is just using semantics to disruptively game the system. Like I said before, this would have resulted in keep if a valid argument for keeping it was made instead of people making generic, low effort votes that go against the RfC. That's it. Period. End of story. Outside of that it's stupid to complain about the article being re-nominated when none of you were willing to put the work into it the first time around so it wouldn't have to be. Really, all articles that end in no consensus due to low effort, generic voting should be speedy re-nominated. No matter which side is doing it. Otherwise, we are allowing the process to be derailed. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That very first sentence is ambiguous anyway. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This will remain a perennial AfD candidate if people keep talking about procedure or voting "per previous discussion" rather than discuss the available sourcing. The previous AfDs are of remarkably little value and of no help here: first one was dominated by the RfC with very little discussion of the source material (supervote-kept nonetheless), the second predictably had lots of "keep per previous discussion", with some openly admitting they hadn't read any sources. The article currently references: 1, the school itself, not independent; 2, a database, no prose; 3, a profile/database entry in a web outlet that was deemed non-notable a couple years ago; 4, a listing of several schools with high number of applicants, ARS itself not being the main topic; 5, likewise; 6, passing mention. How do these sources establish notability? Avilich (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed in the previous AfD, the school is discussed in various newspaper articles but unfortunately they aren't in English. We have to consider offline sources too, as point three ("References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.") states, and it is evident the school has significant coverage in newspapers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I could tell the only English reference that was mentioned in the previous AfD just affirmed that they have a basketball team. Outside of that since we can't read the news articles that are posted on their website there's no way to tell if they are "significant coverage" or not. But going by the article titles a lot of it looks extremely run of the mill. Like 6 of the articles are about school functions and they are likely local news papers. Also a few, like "Our Troopers Class" are primary. My guess is that others are also. None of that does anything for notability. Actually the more I look at the articles the more I'm convinced they are primarily from a school newspaper or paid to print pieces. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage. In fact, the 2017 RFC linked above specifically mentions local media coverage as helping to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware. Purely local coverage does not a notable article make though. There also needs to be one reference from a regional or national outlet and as far as I'm aware there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that to be true, and such a requirement doesn't appear to be present in GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in WP:NORG. Which are the notability guidelines to follow depending on what type of school this is. There's really no way to know if we don't have any references though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as no one can produce concrete examples and demonstrate that an actual encyclopedic article can be written with them (meaning no trivial mentions or application statistics), this is all speculation and WP:V is not met. It's also remarkable that in 11 years no one ever bothered writing a non-English Wikipedia article of this school; this one only exists in the first place due to the work of a single-edit, single-purpose account (presumably promotional). Avilich (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What does "A.R.S." mean? Might help find more sources. Also could help to search "A.R.S." vs. "ARS" .. the former according to sources. -- GreenC 19:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Their run by A.R.S. Memorial Educational Society for Human Welfare. So probably that's where the name come from. I can't find jack about them though. Except that they also run a college. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic personal argument
    • Maybe it means Article Rescue Squadron? [sarcasm] Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination
    And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. Streisand effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop with your paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense. Yes, I was making fun of your group for Molon labe-ing over this silly school article, but I also think there’s legitimate issues with notability and over-reliance on old AfD consensuses. Do you have nothing more productive to do than run the wiki around ranting about me? Even Andrew and Lightburst have cooled it a little after their tbans, and DF has participated in several AfDs (including this one) without stirring up drama. Why can’t you do the same? Not every AfD needs to be a battleground. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this closes as no consensus because of their obstructing nonsense again you should just renominate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll be taking them to ANI again first so they don’t immediately do it again. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you taking to ANI and for what reason? NemesisAT (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this article had been made now, under identical circumstances, would it have survived a simple PROD? Would it even have passed draft review? I doubt it. We need to stop grandfathering in ancient, low-quality articles based on dated or low-effort consensus, or “no consensus” closes handwaved as “de facto keep” closes. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody is considering the previous no consensus result as a "de facto keep", but my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is if you're unhappy with the result of a recently closed discussion you go to WP:DRV, you don't renominate it and hope for a different result. NemesisAT (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No consensus isn't really an actual result is it? That's why AfDs that are no consensus can be renominated after a certain amount of time passes. I don't think there is set amount of time that has to pass before renominating something either. In the meantime there's no way a no consensus close can be fairly adjudicated at a DRV. Since it literally means there isn't a clear outcome that the closer might have miss-read or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      All the “keep” votes just seem to be relying heavily on procedural arguments rather than providing evidence the thing is actually notable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      With most of them I’m assuming good faith, but with 13 I’m guessing it’s because they don’t actually care about providing a non-technical argument because they seem to be of the opinion that articles must by default be “rescued” by any means possible, even when they’re likely-promotional articles about unremarkable schools made by single purpose accounts over a decade ago. Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      After the whole discussion on Jimmy Whales' talk page I'm pretty convinced that their bar for what should be included in Wikipedia is so low that it's nonexistent. At that point they will vote to keep anything. So they can't really make rational, guideline based arguments for keeping articles when they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Just doesn't pass the notability test, with me. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - all the "per previous" !votes should be discounted. Any keep without two GNG sources should be discounted. Until/unless someone posts two GNG sources, it's a delete. Levivich 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should they be discounted? Am I okay just to keep renominating an article until it gets deleted? That doesn't seem very fair. NemesisAT (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      see my reasoning above: they all rely on technicalities that don’t get to the meat of the issue: is this even notable? Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We already had a discussion, some people felt it was notable while others didn't. The "no consensus" vote was appropriate. The article hadn't changed in the intermediate two days. Per WP:RELIST, it isn't really appropriate to relist (or in this case, restart) a discussion because it ended in no consensus. NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I still think this is much ado about nothing, since as I stated earlier this argument is only happening because the article was made ages ago and thus gets some kind of unwritten grandfather clause on its notability. Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "Am I okay just to keep renominating an article until it gets deleted?" That's not why this was relisted. It was relisted because one side decided to force a no consensus by way of obfuscation. In the meantime if this is actually notable then there's as much chance of it being closed as keep. Which I'm sure Dronebogus would accept. I know I would. So there's zero reason you should care. If your so concerned about WP:RELIST not being followed then you should hold keep voters who are ignoring the notability guidelines to the same standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -A boringly routine secondary school. While there do seem to be too many bobs at the apple here, that is countered completely by the quality of the overwhelming majority of the “keep” votes. Qwirkle (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are three sources in the article that can be considered as contributing to notability. One has a single sentence Rohit Ranjan, of ARS Public School, scored 99.91 percentile., and in the other two it is part of a list of 14 other schools. Not seeing anything close to GNG. Aircorn (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Have you tried to check for sources... not in the article? GNG fails aren't based on the sourcing in the article, but the sourcing that is WP:PUBLISHED. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. I did a search, looked at old versions of the article and even the old AFDs. If you can find some sources ping me and I will consider at them too. Aircorn (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I've spent some time trying to clean up and improve this article but just cannot. There is no way this meets WP:GNG. Sources are either passing references or just routine. I cannot speak for Hindi sources but I think it is folly to presume something I cannot read provides notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:MILL; sources are self-published or routine. Miniapolis 00:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Haven't been involved in this subject or the previous AfDs. While this AfD may have come too quickly after the last, I think WP:NOTBUREAU policy can be invoked in this case. That's because looking over the sources, I see nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG in terms of a depth of coverage.
    The 2017 RfC is very clear that these schools do not get an automatic pass simply for existing. Reading through other !votes here or in previous AfDs, I don't see anything in the keeps even coming close to addressing notability. Instead mention of sources is nonexistent or extremely superficial passing mention, so deletion seems pretty clean cut here unless there are other sources out there. WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:NSCHOOL give guidance on what is needed, and I see nothing even approaching that. KoA (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: to List of schools, colleges and universities in Bokaro. I'm not happy with the WP:BEFORE instruction B#5 to respect Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion re-nomination timescales and the probability this school's article was targeted due to the "ARS" component of the name being the acronym for "Article Rescue Squadron". Going beyond that important possible discriminatory point is can we improve the situation by merge and I think we can. The sources here would help improve that target. To be clear I am volunteering to do the merge work and will try to improve the suggested target. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I'm fine with that. Merging the article is better then this being closed as no consensus again. Hopefully the keep voters will be fine with it also. Since doing so retains the information and that's what their concern is. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That list is very bad and its entries don't seem to be notable either, it's all arguably deletion material. Avilich (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I was thinking that, but it could be a while until the other articles are deleted if they even ever are. So there's no reason not to merge it in the meantime. Maybe the content from the articles that aren't notable can be merged also. Then the list might be worth keeping. Plus, I'd like to be done with this whole thing already and merging it seems like a good way for that to happen while still retaining the content worth having. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Merging it is fine by me given the article merged into is going to be improved. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, with no reliable sources that indicate otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep 1) No good reason for speedy renomination has been noted, and 2) the fact that this has been drawn into the Article Rescue Squadron debacle (note the acronym similarities) demonstrates that any number of the above opinions are not about this article but picking sides in a meta-disagreement. WP:POINT applies. This is not so bad that leaving it around for two months months per WP:RENOM's advice is problematic. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The spirit of RENOM is presumably that, by allowing some time to pass between nominations, each participant's input and the concept of a 'consensus' won't be so fleeting or meaningless, since only the last nomination's result ultimately matters. But the previous AfDs were remarkably devoid of actual discussion on the sources, so an arbitrary 2 months of waiting serves no purpose here. It would be silly to prevent people from discussing this further, especially now that they're finally focusing on the GNG/SIGCOV issue, which is what actually matters. Avilich (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also when those of us largely uninvolved editors see a clear problem with notability and lack of sources itself, Jclemens' !vote just becomes WP:POINT itself and violates WP:NOTBUREAU policy. If anything, their comment is casting WP:ASPERSIONS and poisoning the well for those of us actually focusing on the article and sources, not whatever editor disputes have been going on in the background. KoA (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, the speedy renomination and all this noise about procedural pedantry has brought the issue to everyone's attention and is attracting more editors to the discussion, creating a much more solid and legitimate 'community consensus' than the previous two AfDs. Avilich (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had a point, you lost it by suggested that WP:POINT applied to my contribution. Seriously, this is not a deletion debate about a school, as we can see by the cast of characters presenting themselves here. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    POINT is for describing disruptive comments, especially aspersions that are not appropriate here. That has no place in an AfD. I'm well aware that disruptive editors have been following others around, sanctions have been handed out, etc., but that is no reason to disrupt those who are actually ignoring or cutting through that to focus on the article's notability itself. KoA (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, WP:POINT is about taking actions to disrupt Wikipedia. KoA, I highly recommend you actually read it before citing it. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do suggest rereading POINT. Your continuing to inject a battleground mentality and cast aspersions is actively working to disrupt this AfD for those trying to look at this actual article dispassionately rather than inject Wiki-politics into it. Normally when told to knock it off, people either are expected to back off or even strike their comments, not double down. KoA (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My earlier keep vote is based on the lack of evidence of a search for non-English and off-line sources. Deletion without such a search unbalances Wikipedia by unduly favouring the retention of articles on similar schools in developed English-speaking countries. Although it will count against my favoured outcome, I should draw attention to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination), where ArnabSaha indicates that the newspaper cuttings on the school's website[15] do not indicate notability. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any indication that there are relevant, independent sources to rescue this article? If so, why did nobody come up with those sources? The Banner talk 17:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails GNG and lacking in SIGCOV, sourcing is mostly just sporadic mentions. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep. Per WP:RENOM, which suggests waiting two months to renominate a no consensus AFD. Re-litigating this two days after the previous close is too aggressive, and not a good use of time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, albeit weakly. I'm seeing some significant coverage of the school in the sources in the article, but only from one organization (The Telegraph). Per a 2017 RfC, schools aren't presumed notable just because they exist. Therefore, per WP:N, they need to either meet the WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline (such as WP:ORG). That 2017 RfC's closing summary also states Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. I don't really see discussion on that for now, and it's likely that many local publications are going to be non-English. An editor in the previous AfD identified this source as significant coverage; I'm not quite sure of that, though it affirms that the school does (or did) have basketball as a sport. Some of the tone issues can be resolved by means other than deletion, and I have attempted to do so in my edit. However, in the absence of anybody claiming to have done a thorough search of print and/or local media regarding this school, though at least one editor found a page on the school's website that contains screenshots of print articles that the school claims are about it in a previous discussion. While I can't read the language those local news articles are written in, some of the articles at minimum contain a photograph that includes an English-language sign containing the name of the school, so it doesn't look like the articles are totally frivolous. I lean towards presuming notability given that it's received some coverage from at least one national or large regional outlet and it appears to have received significant coverage from multiple local outlets. If anybody can read those articles, it would be helpful in determining the extent of WP:SIGCOV, but I can't think of doing anything but keeping it given what's been presented. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has anyone !voting for delete actually evaluated the over one dozen non-English news articles available here? Notability is based on the sources existing, not the status of the article. I'm seeing nobody really address these sources. I understand that they're written in a language that pretty much none of us can read, but it would be rather detrimental if we decide to delete a page not knowing what all the sources we can find on it actually say. We've found local coverage of the school—it would be incredibly premature to delete the article under the assumption of a GNG because none of us can actually tell what the articles written in the local language actually say. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for other people but I've addressed them several times. They all seem to be self published PR and (or) extremely trivial. Although it's hard to tell since I don't read the language, but the titles of the articles are in English. Going by them it seems what I've said is the case. Unless someone can prove otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean to say that the English-language blurb underneath the articles is a faithful translation of the newspaper headline? I find that really unlikely to be the case. My argument is that the people claiming a WP:GNG fail are systemically excluding these WP:PUBLISHED sources on the basis that we can't find an editor who is able to read them. Shame on us if we can't, but that's no reason to wholly ignore the school RfC's guidance that a WP:BEFORE search should include some local print media. Honestly, even if there's a single editor who is capable of reading this stuff (or better yet, reading it and finding links to them in an online publication that can be machine translated for everyone to read), then I would think it possible to make a firm and hard delete !vote if the stuff is not going to contribute to GNG. But, at the current moment, we can't. I don't see the great harm that would come from keeping an article up until we can actually figure that part out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a visual translator, this appears to be Hindi text. Unfortunately, since it's a translator that relies on visuals, it's not making any sense of the tight newspaper columns. On the bright side, since it's Hindi, we should certainly be able to find a good deal of people at WP:WikiProject India who would be able to read them and evaluate their depth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relying on machine translations, but this source, this source, this source appear to mention the school and/or its activities in non-trivial depth. I'm very limited in my ability to search in Hindi being that I can't read or write it, so others might have more success, but it looks like local digital media is providing some non-English online coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first two references are about ARS College, which is a different school, and the third one is about the health benefits of the wormwood plant lol. In no way do those mention the school and/or its activities in non-trivial depth or at all for that matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, the third one appears to be about a science experiment conducted at the school that got attention from the "National Science Congress". I'm unsure if it's Indian Science Congress Association, but if so, that would be of note. The translation on the first source is pretty obviously bungled, though it does mention "ARS Public School" and "ARS College" almost as if they're the same or a similar entity. The second source is accidentally the same as the first source; I now can't quite find the link I'd intended to put there, and it's not going to come easy. The claim that the sources don't mention the school at all for that matter appears to be rather silly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The college and this school aren't the same thing. They are run by the same organization though, and therefore both have ARS in the name. That said, the article is clear that "there is also ARS Public School in the vicinity of B.Ed College." So I'm not sure how it would make the two sound the same when it specifically says they are different. Outside of that, WP:GNG says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage." Further, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail." Looking at the third article the sentence "amanna Kumari, Siddhant Kumar, Shraddha Kumari and Anshita Kumari of Ars Public School, Bokaro , under the guidance of their scienceteacher, have made a wonderful project to prove weed is a friend of man" is the only time the school is talked about. I wouldn't call a single sentence that amounts to "so and so goes to X school" to be a mention of the school. At least not in a way that is relevant to this discussion. It's definitely not the direct, in-depth coverage that WP:GNG requires. You could argue the school is notable through attention the students got from the "National Science Congress", but there's two issues with doing so. 1. The students got the recognition, not the school, and this article isn't about the students 2. Notability isn't inherited. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Wikipedia has a systemic bias toward the English speaking editors. Trying to find and accurately interpret (I did not say "translate") articles in non-English language sources is a problem. And it has had an impact here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any indication that there are relevant, independent sources to rescue this article? If so, why did nobody come up with those sources? The Banner talk 17:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd think after 3 AfDs and a long break in between two of them that even non-English sources would have materialized. Realistically we can't just keep every single badly sourced non-English article just in case someone decides to add references to them eventually. That's what drafts and deletion reviews exist for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

    • Redirect to appropriate school district governing body. Although frankly, this should be procedurally kept as a bad faith nom and the nominator sanctioned for disruptive behaviour.Polyamorph (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • …and then it’s just going to be nominated again in a few weeks/months and someone’s going to say that’s bad faith and needs procedural keeping etc. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and this school is not notable. Dronebogus (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is not a beaucracy, no. Neither is it a battle/playground. Polyamorph (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pretty Boy Floyd would not be welcome? Qwirkle (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails GNG. The sourcing present in the article and the local-language sources which have been found amount to routine coverage for a run-of-the-mill secondary school. –dlthewave ☎ 16:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per my above comment on the references. No evidence so far of any other offline or non-English source that could remedy this. It's worth noting that the article creator only has a single edit and no one has ever bothered creating a non-English version of this. It's not to Wikipedia's merit that an article on some random unremarkable school can be created effortlessly while deleting it takes so much time and effort. Avilich (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete procedural !votes notwithstanding, the fact remains that the subject isn't notable. I haven't seen any convincing arguments to keep the article outside of these procedural !votes. AlexEng(TALK) 06:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wow!. Between the three nominations of this simple little article (< 700 characters of narrative text) about a public school in India's Bokano Steel City, some of Wikipedia's best minds have now devoted a stunning 100,000 bytes to this debate. Imagine the things that could have been better accomplished with all of this brain power. Cbl62 (talk) 13:20, 16 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. There is a general consensus against deletion here, without prejudice against a later merge, discussion about which can continue on outside of this AfD. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Normanism[edit]

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

    Why the page should be deleted This article tries to make the mainstream view of Scandinavians having a role in the creation of Russia into an -ism. Moreover, there is already a more developed article at Anti-Normanism that covers the historical debate. This article is more like righting a great wrong than an attempt at writing an NPOV article.--Berig (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: this deletion nominatiom was malformed. I have corrected it in a simplistic manner (edit conflict) FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: The nomination edit summary states "Since the discussion has gone stale, I nominate this article for deletion instead" which I presume to refer to a merge discussion on the articles talk page. This is an interesting rationale for bringing to AfD. Setting that aside, I see a referenced article on the topic. I have not assessed it for the virtues of the merge discussion, but I do not believe a deletion discussion is the correct way to settle a content dispute. WP:DRN is a far better place to do this fi the parties are identifiable, or WP:RFC if they are not. Other mechanisms exist. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a content dispute. The article is simply superfluous since there is already another article on the topic, and it has name that gives undue weight by presenting the mainstream view as just another -ism.--Berig (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the dispute is, I doubt deletion is the route forward. I apologise that I have mis-categorised it as a content dispute. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who wrote it is globally banned (if I understand "globally locked" correctly), so everything needs to be verified anyway.--Berig (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not changed my mind about my opinion in this discussion. If it requires verification then it requires verification. If it requires editing then it requires editing. If it requires merging then it requires merging, and so forth. For clarity I have no investment in the content. I am here because I saw that the discussion was malformed. I disagree with the nomination, and have said so. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Looking at the global account history the global lock was placed on 29 October following this Stewards Request.
      I checked the dates to seek to determine whether this was an "Article created by a blocked user", but can see insufficient data. They are blocked on the bg WP " Злоупотреба с допълнителни потребителски сметки (марионетки):" which translates to "Abuse of additional user accounts (puppets):", also on es WP, and it may be that a an account used by this editor has been previously blocked on en WP.
      Without that information it seems to me that this article and this discussion should be treated at face value on its merits. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
      • Whether an article is superfluous, as the nominator says, is a content dispute.
      • The article is not superfluous, because it is needed to clarify Anti-Normanism as historical revisionism.
      • There is a reasonable argument that can be made for tagging the article G5, to let an administrator, or especially a steward, decide whether it should be deleted as work of a banned user. There is also an argument that I consider somewhat stronger why the G5 should be declined, because the editor had not yet been globally locked, and so was not evading a block or ban. Also, if the article is deleted, a good-faith editor can resubmit it with proper attribution, which is in turn a reason why a good-faith editor can endorse the article and request that the G5 be declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not at this time have an opinion as to whether it requires verification or editing. It does not require merging. What would it be merged into? Anti-Normanism? That puts the cart before the horse. Equids are not known for their ability to push wheeled vehicles.
    Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or (better still) Merge with Anti-Normanism (or reverse merge). We do not need two articles on this controversy. The Anti-Normanism article is the better one of the two. The foreign origin of the Rus' was regarded highly offensive in the Soviet era. I am far from clear whether WP policy would prefer the article to be at Normanism, rather than Anti-Normanism. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - There are two plausible arguments for deletion, but there are counter-arguments against both of them. First, the article was created by a banned sockpuppeteer. Second, the article is superfluous to Anti-Normanism. The timing is such that G5 does not apply, because the user had not yet been globally locked when the article was created. Also, G5 is not intended to prevent the re-creation of pages created by banned users, and good-standing users, including User:Timtrent and User:Peterkingiron, agree that it contains useful information. The article is not superfluous, because anti-Normanism is a reaction against Normanism. After the article is kept, Anti-Normanism, which, as per Peterkingiron, is a better article, can be merged into it, with or without a formal merge request. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Robert McClenon I go as far as the fact that it has cited content. Cited content suggests that it has notability, which is all it requires to survive a deletion discussion. My main thrust is that this is not an appropriate venue to solve a dispute, whether it be about content or about another aspect of the article.
      I view the ultimate fate of this article and the anti article to be in the hands of editors once this AfD is resolved and closed. I am anticipating a closure that at retains the article, and suggest that it might even be a procedural close that this is the incorrect venue for this discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft delete by merging to [[Rus' people#History]]. The article was evidently created as a POV fork of Anti-Normanism in order to promote a false balance: the mainstream view is that Norse people played a major role in founding Rus', and labeling this mainstream view "Normanism" is a means of articulating fringe positions. Anti-Normanism presents the history of the controversy, and Rus' people presents the mainstream view. Having a separate article on the mainstream view misleadingly suggests that it and the historical opposition to it deserve equal weight. The merger discussion has given rise to a suggestion that Normanism and Anti-Normanism be merged under the title Normanist controversy; that seems like a satisfactory title for those who dislike negative titles, but the mainstream view should be covered most extensively at the main article, not at an article on the (largely historical) controversy, so I do not advocate either merging Anti-Normanism into Normanism, as originally proposed, or having parallel redirects. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean Merge and redirect to Rus' people#History, I support this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, even Speedy Keep, as there is no rational for deletion over merge or thoroughly restructure. Keep without predijice to a merge or smerge or redriect. I support the Talk:Normanism#Merger proposal as a good idea and it being allowed to progress without the shadow of this AfD. There is a lot of historical uncertainty, and confusion, and confusing terminology. Were the Swedish ancestors Normans? Should the language be adjusted from "Norman" to "Scandinavian"? Were the Normal/Scandinavian/Vikings who intermingled into Kievan Rus' a pure race, or were they already connected to the Slavs? Is too much being made of the languages? My guess is that "Normanism", referring to a Norman part in the ethnogenesis of the Rus' people belongs as a definition of the term, as used historically, in another article, and not as a stand along article, either Normanism or Anti-Normanism. However, deletion is not the method to find consensus for an answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 13 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 11:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Woland (film)[edit]

    Woland (film) (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:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, the film has not even been confirmed its release date, just saying 2022. Htanaungg (talk) 10:18, 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 merge to Fontana, California. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fontana Police Department (California)[edit]

    Fontana Police Department (California) (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 notability can be shown to meet WP:NCORP; most sources cited in the article are from the subject's website. Fails GNG either. Htanaungg (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Fontana, California per WP:NOTWEBHOST, where this material can actually do some good, since the article currently lacks any information about it. However, it needs to be whittled down considerably to achieve the proper WP: PROPORTION, since there is currently too much extraneous detail. Now, there was an officer-involved shooting in February [16] involving this department, when a burglary suspect who was found hiding in a construction site portable toilet brandished a lighter. There was a bit of continuing coverage in August about a $1M settlement in the case. Other than that, this appears to be about just another WP:MILL small-town PD. StonyBrook (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per StonyBrook, specifically to the infrastructure section which already hosts information about similar services (e.g., hospitals). FOARP (talk) 12:49, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Los Mirlos[edit]

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

    Has released many albums, but none can be shown any notability to meet WP:NBAND. Htanaungg (talk) 10:22, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dumero[edit]

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

    Just a novel; no notability to meet WP:NBOOK. Htanaungg (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wallflowernepal, I have reverted your edit as the articles listed here are normally discussed for at least seven days. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 14:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The references like The himalayan Times , The Kathmandupost , nagarik and many more proves its notability . Iamwikisimple (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep : The book has been subject of reliable and independent sources. Meets WP:NBOOK. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 17:53, 13 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 Symbols of Newfoundland and Labrador#Unofficial symbols of Labrador. Consensus is that this should be merged or redirected, although there is some debate over what/if should be merged. Redirecting, which preserves page history; anyone can merge stuff out of the page history if desired as part of the normal editing process. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Coat of arms of Labrador[edit]

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

    Sources do not pass WP:RSSELF, both being self-published webpages. The only other mentions I can find of the topic are about the Coat of arms of Newfoundland and Labrador excepting another wiki, which seems to have copied the info from the aforementioned sources. ― novov t c 10:05, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Born to Win (album)[edit]

    Born to Win (album) (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 notable enough to meet WP:NALBUM as a standalone article. (Redirecting to Bini (group) may be a solution.) Htanaungg (talk) 09:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Duysevi Mirza Karan Miyar[edit]

    Duysevi Mirza Karan Miyar (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 earthly reason why a run-of-the-mill school teacher warrants a Wikipedia article (otherwise I want one!). Only attempt to establish notability is that she failed by a long way to be elected to a school board, hardly high political office. Article was created in 2014, the year she ran for election, and the suspicion must be that this was part of her campaign publicity. It's worth noting that the creator of the article has done nothing else on Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 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 redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Road of a Thousand Dreams[edit]

    Road of a Thousand Dreams (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:NALBUM / WP:GNG, the references cited are from non-reliable sources and all of them are about the artist, not the album. Onmyway22 talk 07:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onmyway22 talk 08:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - There was a single by the 80's band Trixter that had the same title which causes a lot of false hits, but nothing in RS sources that I can see. The sources in the article are all interviews or otherwise non-RS, and anyway don't give any significant coverage to the actual record. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography per above. Fails WP:NALBUM but redirecting to the artist is reasonable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 15 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) 04:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants Game September 2021[edit]

    Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants Game September 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Proposed for deletion by other editors, I'm just making a formal nomination. It fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's not the final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, it isn't a college bowl games, it's not an all-star games, and it is not a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable. The only reporting is all routine coverage, as to be expected by an early season game that didn't have any notable events (like a large comeback or major record broken) and it was a game like the 2018 Rams vs Chiefs game. Rockchalk717 04:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. It was an exciting game, no doubt, but we choose as a matter of editorial judgment to cover NFL games in season articles on the respective teams. We discourage stand-alone articles on regular-season games except in truly extraordinary and historic cases. Cbl62 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per all above. Anything worth saying about this game can be briefly summarized at 2021 Washington Football Team season, 2021 New York Giants season, and Giants–Washington rivalry, as appropriate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete would be more suitable for an online sports almanac, suggest enthusiastic editors try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW: I looked around and see footall wiki and don't see any games since 2019, perhaps it is defunct? -Reagle (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom et al. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - nothing special about this game. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I appreciate the work Pippalenderking did here, but I don't follow sports enough to know how notable this game was. If the consensus is for delete, I appreciate the suggestions for places a summary might be included. I didn't think this was an issue given Notability_(sports) states the criteria include "inherently notable, including but not limited to the following". I misread this as fairly inclusionist. People have mentioned some helpful exclusionary criteria here: "ongoing," "truly extraordinary," "lasting impact," "continuing news cycle [beyond the week of the game]". I recommend including these in the policy to make it more clear. -Reagle (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally, individual sports matches don't warrant an individual article unless they're tournament finals or have exceptionally high coverage e.g. 2018 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Rams game which set multiple records. There's nothing exceptional about a team winning a match on a field goal, even if it was caused by a penalty- this happens at least once a season (and many times a week games are won on a final FG).
    • @Reagle: Notability guidelines can be confusing, and I concur that NSPORT could be amended to make the criteria more clear. I mentioned this on the talk page of the article in question, but as it is heading to a SNOW deletion I will repeat it here: I suggest that Pippalenderking take a look at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports, which has a large list of suggested article topics that have not been created yet. Just about anything in there should almost certainly pass notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: I disagree that most of the things listed in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports are notable. When I looked at the American football section, most are either assistant coaches, college players, foreign teams, or minor league players/owners, all of which do not meet NSPORT based on the descriptions. If Pippalenderking is interested in football topics that need creation, I would suggest the user look at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Articles to create or Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign. I don't know of the notability for other topics listed on the page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. I think WP:SNOWCLOSE can be applied - great discussion. – The Grid (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom, though some of this information should be added to 2021 Washington Football Team season or 2021 New York Giants season. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. The game was just another routine event and controversial endings to close games are not uncommon. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 19:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just want to offer my thanks and appreciation for all of the advice on my article. This is the first article I've ever written for Wikipedia and I am grateful for all the suggestions you have provided! I am going to look into contributing to other related articles -- thank you for including me in this valuable discussion! Pippalenderking (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per policy. I'd ordinarily be sympathetic to keeping WikiEd pages that are anywhere near the borderline, but this is such a clear routine sports event that I can't support delaying. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete routine sports event. Generally it takes a significant play or record (such as Hail Murray or the 2007 Pats-Giants game), major controversy (such as Bottlegate) or significant off-field lead up (e.g. Tom Brady’s return to New England) for a regular season game to have its own page. This game had none of these, simply a game winning field goal on the final play, something very common in football games. Frank AnchorTalk 13:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; Easy decision here, per nomination comments. Nothing noteworthy in this game. Spf121188 (talk) 21:34, 15 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 Procedural keep. While the content and structure of these articles may be similar, several editors have pointed out that their claims to notability are not the same. As such a single outcome is not possible, and arriving at individual outcomes for 100+ articles is not feasible in a single discussion. I would recommend renomination in much smaller batches, after searches for sources have been completed. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2020 May Kado massacre[edit]

    2020 May Kado massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Full list of articles
    2020 May Kado massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2020 Selekhlekha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2020 Shire massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2020 Wukro Maray massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2021 Megab massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2021 Mekelle air strikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2021 Selekhlekha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2021 Shire massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2021 Wukro Maray massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Addi Berik massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Addi Deqqi Beqli massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Addi Esher massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Addi Gabat massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Adi Hageray massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Adi Hutsa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Agbe airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ala'isa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    April 2021 Adwa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    April 2021 May Kado massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ari Giyergis massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Awulo massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ba'ati Akor massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Begasheka Tsion massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Beles massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Berakit massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Berezba massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bi'ati Ero massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bisober massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bizet massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bombing of Wukro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bora massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Chenna massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Da'iro Hafash massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Dansha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Debano massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Debre Abbay massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Debre Genet massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Debrekerbe massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    December 2020 Gijet massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    December 2020 Wukro massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Dengelat massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Early December 2020 Hawzen massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    February 2021 Adwa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    February 2021 Gijet massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    February 2021 Hawzen massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    February 2021 Saharti-Samre massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    February 2021 Wukro massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Finarwa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    First Addi Geba massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Galikoma massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Gira Aras massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Goda massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Grizana massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Guh massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Gulsha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Haddush Addi massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Hagere Selam massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Higumburda massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Humera massacres (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Humera massacres (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Idaga Hibret massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Igri Karan massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Imbaseneyti massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Inda Teka Tesfay roadside massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Indafelasi killing spree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    January 2021 Hawzen massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Jijiqe massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Kelawlo massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Kerebera Da Mariyam massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Kola Tembien February 2021 massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Korarit massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Late December 2020 Hawzen massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Lynching of Wollo University professors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mahbere Dego massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    March 2021 Saharti-Samre massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    March 2021 Wukro massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Maryam Hareko massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    May Atsmi massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    May Haidi massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    May Kinetal massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    May Ma'ido airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    May Weyni massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Medhane-Alem church massacre in Gu'itelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Megab massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mekelle shelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Midri Hamsho shelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Milakua massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    November 2020 Adwa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    November 2020 Hawzen massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    November 2020 Idaga Hamus massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    November 2020 Wukro massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Qoraro massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Second Addi Geba massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sheraro massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Shiglil massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Shimelba massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Simret (Hawzen) massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Tisha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Togoga airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Tshafti airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Wereta killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Wurgessa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Zalambessa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Zamr massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ziban Gedena massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Zobel incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Most of the articles in this category (Category:Massacres of the Tigray War) are all almost identically structured and most cite only one source that is specific to each particular incident (Atlas of the humanitarian situation). This source is a data table listing dates and numbers of casualties. Each line on that data table does not warrant its own article; as tragic as these events are, they do not fulfill the notability guidelines set forth in WP:EVENT. They also have some clear WP:NPOV issues. WMSR (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Boud: The Atlas is sourced on WP:RSP#ResearchGate which is considered a generally unreliable source because it is self-published material and should not be the "lynch pin" of these articles. Platonk (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A general case is not the same as a specific case. Boud (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boud: I will quote the policy, WP:GUNREL, because you either didn't read it or you don't agree with it. Regardless, it represents consensus. Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. Platonk (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - very happy to delete all based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTDATABASE (add in a dash of WP:MEATBOT as well) WMSR, so long as you can tell us which of these don't only cite Atlas of the humanitarian situation. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Those articles with other reliable sources were not included in this nomination. Those are: Adigrat massacres, Axum massacre, Hitsats massacre, Irob people, and Mai Kadra massacre. The nominated pages are all either entirely or heavily sourced to a single line on a data table in an unpublished research paper. WMSR (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The first and third statements here are false. The difference between all and many is fundamental. Boud (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Most of these aren't independently notable, and the full list of victims violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The advantage of a merge is that individual entries can be contested and un-merged. Higumburda massacre is an excellent example that should NOT be a stand-alone article; the two sources that mention the massacre are simply repeating White Propaganda in a non-critical fashion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Apparently, there is collusion by WMSR and Dawit S Gondaria to do this. Are they running a bot to put labels on articles that I created? >100 articles labelled in 5 minutes; they cannot have looked into each article individually. This vandalism. Above user comes then with "WHITE PROPAGANDA" argumentation ??? Looks like POV collusion of Ethiopian government supporters. A massacre of 3 people in US would be notable but 13 people in Ethiopia would not? Rastakwere (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rastakwere, I used AWB, not a bot, to add the deletion tags. This is not vandalism, nor is it a violation of any policy. It is a policy violation to engage in personal attacks and it is inappropriate to accuse others of wrongdoing without any evidence. I did not "collude" with anyone, and I am not an "Ethiopian government supporter". I strongly suggest that you strike these attacks, and limit your comments to the merits of the AfD. WMSR (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      1. What about the WHITE PROPAGANDA thing, not by you, but another user, yet it seems a fair argumentation in your eyes? 2. Your action comes in the same time with Dawit S Gondaria. 3 And, tell me, is there also a reverse AWB, I am not familiar with all such stuff. Rastakwere (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, @Rastakwere, I'm not sure white propaganda means what you think it means. That said, I did not make the comment; you will have to ask @力 what they meant by it. To your second point, it is perfectly normal for two people to be online at the same time. I am confused about your last question; AWB is a way to complete repetitive tasks quickly on Wikipedia. I am not sure what "reverse AWB" would be. Again, I ask that you please keep the discussion on this page limited to the topic at hand and strike any personal attacks in your previous comments. WMSR (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "White propaganda" here means that the sources all only refer to the massacre as "according to Tigrai Media House", which I don't feel is sufficient for these stand-alone articles to exist. There is a fig-leaf of separation between that group and the Tigray rebels; yet without some source showing they are more interested in journalism than in promoting an agenda I will assume they are doing the latter. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "White propaganda" - strange terminology. And in those 106 articles, I do not remember often referring to Tigrai Media House; I know that it is propaganda, just like Borkena or ESAT. Rastakwere (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, this is not the first time that issues mentioned are raised, with discussion, and concluding in a Keep decision. Two or three times. I should look up the talk pages of the articles, because I do not keep track of it...Rastakwere (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not !vote twice. Curbon7 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All, a sample of the sourcing of these individual articles show that the nominator is correct, while the sourcing may at first glance seem sufficient there is actually almost no cited coverage of these massacres, the only individual coverage being a directory listing. There are several massacres that have received sufficient coverage, but those ones have not been nominated here so they are irrelevant to this discussion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. All of them or draftify them. A lot of dubious sourcing going on here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sportsfan 1234: You want them draftified so that the backlog at AFC will increase? Over a 100 articles? A much better solution will be preferable...Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The 2021 Mekelle air strikes article can stay up. I don't know why it was added here (guessing because it was part of the massacres category) as it fits WP:GNG and WP:DEPTH. It just needs a major update and some rewriting. --Ue3lman (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment @Rastakwere you should cease your baseless accusations. I already expressed concern about the ‘Atlas’ source months ago, and i noticed user has been negatively affecting other articles. I'm not voting here since i opened an ANI [[31]], but i needed to respond to this agression. Your articles are being scrutinized, deal with it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Some of the articles like the Togoga airstrike have extensive coverage and more than enough information while others are little more than a listing of the names of the people that died. Deciding to delete MOST of the coverage of the Tigray war with a flick of the wrist is not smart. We should go through each individual article and decide which ones should stay and which ones should go rather than mass deleting.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. --Ue3lman (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with the policy on this, but I have no objection to removing those articles from the nomination. WMSR (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter sources are not essential in these articles; I will clean up that already in the articles. And update with more recent "Atlas" reference.Rastakwere (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It will be unwise to delete everything(including those that ​have a better coverage). I'll have to agree with Garmin21 who said “We should go through each individual article and decide which ones should stay and which ones should go rather than mass deleting.” Then I'll also add that we shouldn't think of draftifying the unsuitable ones, instead they should be worked on or deleted --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In defence of the articles on recent massacres in Ethiopia
    • Major source of these articles is indeed the “Atlas of humanitarian situation”: I have no idea whether it has been reviewed or not by Journal of Maps. Probably that is also not the issue, as the journal’s reviewers will look at mapping issues, and will not verify the facts on the ground. But the main review of the veracity of the massacres reported in that “Atlas” was done by the dozen of journalists who extensively quoted the document – one can hardly imagine Associated Press, The Economist, or The Guardian publishing headline articles about it without cross-verification.
    • The same “Atlas” appears now in a new version[1] – there is no more mention of the Journal of Maps, but authors cooperate with the UK-based NGO Every Casualty Counts (ECC), an organisation that dedicates its activities to documenting war crimes and war victims. This gives additional authority to the work, as this organisation makes a strong point of the correct use of methods and standards in casualty recording. It would be good to add the reference to the new version of the “Atlas” to the articles, and even mention the involvement of ECC.
    • To prepare the articles that are discussed here, I have indeed started from lists presented in the said “Atlas”, and then verified systematically whether the massacre was mentioned by a other sources also; this could be another database of victims, or an article in international press. As a consequence, less than half of the massacres listed in the Atlas were covered in a Wikipedia article.
    • Note also that the Wikipedia project Military History visited most of these articles, and rated them mostly as “Start Class”, sometimes B Class – all are invited to further contribute to these articles.
    • Several articles have also been rated for the Wiki projects “Death”, “Ethiopia” and “Africa”, again without the project coordinators listing any major problems with these articles.
    • Use of similar structure in many of the articles, certainly when originally published – is there any Wikipedia rule preventing this?
    • Just like for the Hungerford massacre, and other massacres in the developed world, the names of the victims are mentioned, with full detail of how they were killed.
    • Deleting articles on massacres in Ethiopia, simply because media have no access, while having pages and pages about shootings in the US, is unbalanced – and, as mentioned above, leads to “continental bias” in Wikipedia.
    • Obviously, there is so much editing work to do on many of these articles, and likely I may have missed sources.
    • I am not aware of articles I initiated that would use Tigrai Media House or ESAT/Borkena/Walta as only source besides the “Atlas”. The few times that Tigrai Media House is cited, is when their reports with shocking executions by the Ethiopian army (Mahbere Dego massacres, for instance), were picked up by international media such as BBC and CNN. I kept Tigrai Media House in the storyline because they brought the original imagery, that was later cross verified and geolocated. A few times, Daily Mail was used as a source, later removed after I learned that it is not a reliable source.
    • Indeed, on most pages, formal general reactions by Ethiopian/Eritrean/sometimes Tigray governments are mentioned. That is, I could not find any reaction related to that particular massacre, hence better to mention a good reference for their formal denial of massacres occurring in the war in Tigray.
    • My suggestion is that editors can pick up any article in the Category:Massacres of the Tigray War and further work on it, cq suggest to qualify one or another as draft. In the meantime the suggestion for deletion should be removed from all these pages.
    • Reversely to some intervenants in the discussion here, some of the reviewers of those difficult pages on these massacres left messages of appreciation: See for instance Talk:Addi_Gabat_massacre, or User_talk:Rastakwere#A_cup_of_tea_for_you.Rastakwere (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Annys, S., Vanden Bempt, T., Negash, E., De Sloover, L., Ghekiere, R., Haegeman, K., Temmerman, D., Nyssen, J., 2021. Tigray: Atlas of the humanitarian situation, version 2.1. Ghent (Belgium): Ghent University, Department of Geography Archived 2021-10-13 at archive.today
    • Comment: for details about the use of sources in these articles, see the above (collapsed) text. Rastakwere (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep: And re-nominate in smaller batches, say five maximum, as it is impossible to fairly analyze 107 articles. Curbon7 (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I'm familiar with a procedure that dictates this. These articles were created en masse with a cookie-cutter template, and I don't think it's our responsibility to pore over all of these articles when the vast majority do not meet WP:GNG at this point in time. --WMSR (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many of the articles have copy/pasted material between them, but quite a few have independent editing histories and multiple sources. The difference between many and all is fundamental and should not be trivialised, especially in the context of what is asserted to constitute crimes against humanity or genocide in the opinon of several reliable sources. The author of many of these articles does need some guidance by other editors, but that doesn't mean deletion of articles. Proper respect for the work that has been done would constitute good faith. Boud (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge of smaller articles may be ultimately appropriate, not all of them depend solely on that "Atlas of the humanitarian situation" ref and standalone articles may still be good in some cases. But agree that keep should probably be the outcome here and definitely not a blanket deletion without consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I no longer agree with Curbon7 Procedural keep some are more covered than others, while others are claims relying solely on the Atlas source. Special attention should be given to the reaction section whether claimed event is actually covered in the sources as edited by Rastakwere, and if so whereas through independent/reliable sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also not fair that if an editor creates one dubious article it is removed, but if they create 100 bad articles they are kept. Perhaps these could all be moved to Draftspace, with any editor limited to one AFC submission from the set? I will accept pings for AFC review myself if need be. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean it's not a true keep, it's just a "let's take this in smaller batches at a time". 10 per batch per day is a reasonable amount, that means we'd only be here for 10-ish days. Curbon7 (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @User:力 i think your proposal and that of User:Curbon7 basically comes down to the same thing, the few that may be notable/sourced will be filtered out and kept, and the majority that relies on the Atlas source will be scrutinized in a renomination in smaller batches. 10 a day is certainly do-able. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep At least one of these events has good sources - so keep them all. We aren't going to pick them apart one-by-one. Try posting one a day or something for the next 100 days. Nfitz (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/Merge A lot of these articles don't have any good substance to be notable besides a reliable source reporting on it or a big number of people dying. We should keep the few actually notable articles and merge the rest into a list like 2020 Democratic Republic of the Congo attacks, 2021 Democratic Republic of the Congo attacks, or List of massacres committed during the Eritrean War of Independence. So basically an article like "Massacres during the Tigray War", "Airstrikes during the Tigray War", "Mekelle Airstrikes", or something along those lines I don't know. I also agree with what some of the others have said and put these guys in the draft space if need be. Wowzers122 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2020 May Kado massacre, 2020 Selekhlekha massacre, 2020 Wukro Maray massacre only relies on the Atlas source. 2020 Shire massacre has a Guardian[1]source, but it tells about a event in early December not 15-17 November(Atlas source) no death toll is given in the Guardian, 200 is given in the Atlas. In all 4 articles the reaction section goes like this; ▶ The “Tigray: Atlas of the humanitarian situation”,[1] that documented this massacre received international media attention, particularly regarding its Annex A, that lists massacres in the Tigray War.[4][6][7][8] He uses a CBC[2], Euronews[3], World Radio[4], and The Guardian that doesn't mention the claimed events[5]. I will gradually go down the list and mention it here, rather than repeating it on every single talk page. Please share your take on these articles? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep, no prejudice against renominations - the timing of this suggests that there's no way that a suitable BEFORE check was run on each article. The current sourcing is, of course, insufficient (and Boud's keep reasoning is crystal-ball flawed) - but their nature means that certainly any of them could well have other already-existing sources...and they've not been suitably checked for such. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep. Of the 10 that I spot checked, most of these have been marked as reviewed by new page patrollers, which means that NPPs did a WP:BEFORE and found sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. For me to support deleting all of these as a batch, I'd need to see evidence that a majority of them do not pass GNG, which I find unlikely considering the number of unique NPPs that have marked these as reviewed. I suggest AFDing individual articles or a smaller, more problematic batch rather than this large batch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Per WP:DINC, a.k.a "Deletion is not cleanup". Dunutubble (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: It beggars belief that anyone would argue that a massacre is not "notable". If it's notable if it happens in America, it's notable if it happens in Africa. The lack of abundant sources is merely a reflection of media bias. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikrobølgeovn:, while it may be a reflection of media bias for those massacres to have less sourcing, that alone has little meaning. Wikipedia notability is about the sources - the exemptions with direct call on other aspects are a short, numerable, list - functionally, GEOLAND and NPROF#C1. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: Any policy that regards these massacres as not notable is Eurocentric and should be ignored. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikrobølgeovn: What does race got to do with this? So there should be no treshold for bad articles for claimed events in Africa? Even the single Atlas source may not be independent of the subject, the man leading the investigation Jan Nyssen[11] is a geographer and has spent decades living and working in Tigray. I'm also baffled nobody called out the editor of these bad articles of including sources that don't mention the claimed events. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to see the atrocities that have been going on, rather then rushing into denial. The banner on top of articles such as Adi Hageray massacre provides access to sources. That is encyclopaedia building. Rather than suggestion rejection, you would have found additional sources.[20] Rastakwere (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And, right today 15 November, the validity of the Tghat victims list has been verified by Associated Press. They cross-checked 30 randomly-chosen victims in the list.[21] I trust that, as of now, Dawit S Gondaria and other intervenants in this discussion will have a constructive contribution to the mentioned articles, by expanding them with information provided by Tghat and other sources. Rastakwere (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rastakwere I already did and it leads back to Tghat, such as on this https://ground.news/article/a-preliminary-report-on-an-adi-hageray-massacre and twitter leads to Tghat which i mentioned. As for The AP source only 30 are verified out of 3080 claimed victims through phone calls with relatives and friends, those 30 should be given some due credibility, not the Tghat source which is not independent of the subject, and relies largely on social media. FYI i am not denying atrocities didn't happen, it's just you created a lot of articles based on social media posts, sources that are potentially not indepedent of subject and you used sources that doesn't even mention claimed events/place. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ehm, if a randomly chosen sample of 30 are verified, then the whole database is trustworthy. Rastakwere (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, the articles I randomly checked out of this list failed verification, and therefore the entire list of articles should be deleted. WMSR (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A random (using a high-quality random number generator, not a human brain) sample of 30 will, in the simplest case, have a Poissonian standard error, which is about 5.5. Taking at least three standard errors (though the distribution is not Gaussian) would give a more conservative uncertainty of about 16.5. So finding all 30 of the sample to be notable would reasonably suggest that at least about half of the other 76 are notable; finding all 30 to be non-notable would suggest that at least about half of the other 76 are non-notable. Either way, the consensus seems to be tending towards handling this in batches. Boud (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural suggestion: Based on the tendency of the discussion above, the question would seem to be how many articles could be included in each batch of a series of new AfDs, and with what frequency. The usual 7-day minimum deadline for achieving consensus per batch would apply, since nobody has justified overriding that. Given that we need to allow editors to look for sources to see if articles are likely to satisfy notability and the aims of this encyclopedia, I suggest something like a batch of at most 5-10 articles once per week. Anything more than 5-10 is just too much to give Wikipedians a chance to look seriously for sources and present arguments for the particular cases. More than 5-10 would also make it a lot more difficult for an uninvolved Wikipedian to close an AfD, since it will be hard to untangle different judgments on different articles. The full time scale would be a few months, but that's a lot more rapid than the one-year time scale on which the articles were created and received initial approval by new article patrollers. Boud (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all - per all of the above arguments including NOTMEMORIAL, NOTDIRECTORY, and failure of the Atlas to be a reliable source. I came upon this AfD while removing the deprecated Republic World; I found the same exact sentence with the same exact RepWorld citation in over a dozen of these articles. Looking deeper, this is a case of WP:ADVOCACY and a nightmare to consider for maintenance. I have no doubt these killings took place, but they need to be reliably sourced, and the articles need to comply with Wikipedia notability policies which in this case would have all of these killings/massacres/battles/whateveryoucallthem mentioned in a single article. Platonk (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A "dozen of these" articles does not justify deleting all of the articles. There is no point going into details of specific articles until we switch to a reasonable procedure, but a hint is that if you read the history and talk pages of the Tigray War articles, you'll see that prior to the first few separations of massacres into individual towns, there were big editing conflicts due to different and apparently conflicting claims of attributing responsibility, with Amnesty International and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission being accused of being biased in favour of one side. The mainstream Western media - generally considered high-quality sources - often left out little bits of information, making it hard to summarise. The 106 mass proposal mixes a range of articles of different quality. The EHRC–OHCHR Tigray investigation has published its final report that is quite likely appropriate as another source for many of these massacres, despite being unable to visit much of Tigray. This will be useful once we have switched to a procedure that encourages people to edit those articles that they see as viable. The ACHPR Tigray investigation is a lot more independent of the Ethiopian federal and Tigrayan governments (it's based in Banjul, The Gambia, and set up by the ACHPR), and promises to produce its report by "the end of 2021". Boud (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Platonk Thank you for pointing out the Depracated Atlas source, i went there to check, but must have read past through it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dawit S Gondaria: You are welcome. Platonk (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Boud: You really should consider providing a link to the announcement of the report (such as this one), rather than bypassing it to present a link to a PDF file that doesn't have any letterhead nor authors mentioned in it. Platonk (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all changed from my position of procedural keep, most of the pages use Atlas as the source for a date of claimed event and for the numbers of victims. I have also read the Boud EHRC-Amnesty report which have different dates and number of victims than the deprecated unreliable Atlas source such as Adi Hageray massacre mentions civilians killed on 4 November 2020 by Tigrayan militia's, but the depracated source Atlas claims 200 civilians killed by Ethiopian and Eritrean defense forces between 12-18 November, which is unsupported by the EHCR-Amnesty report. Bora massacre does give the correct date, but different figures than the EHCR-Amnesty figurres which gives the figure of 70 victims not exclusively in Bora, but also 3 other places, Atlas sources gives a fiure of 187 victims. The Amnesty-EHCR report is a credible report and mentions civilians killed by Tigrayan militia's in Humera, which is different than the Humera massacres (2020) which relies on Atlas source. There is also no reason to name the Atlas in Chenna massacre since it gives no figures for this, yet it's added in the reaction section which i removed [[33]], the figures relies on France 24 report . Happy to see all the articles that refer to Atlas deleted, even better if we can get articles that make zero reference to Atlas out this list such as 2021 Mekelle air strikes, Agbe airstrike and Chenna massacre. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One point I think you're missing is, you are trying to delete ALL the pages regardless of if they use the atlas or not. For instance Togoga airstrike doesn't mention the atlas once, is more than notable for Wikipedia (being the deadliest airstrike of the war), and is adequately sourced.--Garmin21 (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garmin21: The Togoga airstrike is already in the article Timeline of the Tigray War. Platonk (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So are most articles on specific events in war on wikipedia. They are often or all the time a part of the their respective timeline for a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garmin21 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garmin21: Sure they're included in a timeline, but individual skirmishes rarely have breakout standalone articles. Wikipedia policy about notability is pretty clear. The guiding policy in this case is Wikipedia:Notability (events), as well as its senior article Wikipedia:Notability which contains the section Whether to create standalone pages. Platonk (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - For those still stuck on the idea that these articles should not be deleted en masse, or who are suggesting the articles should be 'merged', I would like to point out that the basic information of each article, each event, (at least for each one I've checked) already resides in the article Timeline of the Tigray War. It is that article which should house the basic information for each event. Lists of names of dead people from a single event are a memorial and are not something Wikipedia was intended to cover. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. For an example of how casualties are handled for other wars, see Vietnam War casualties or World War II casualties or Casualties of the Iraq War. There are no "lists of dead" though there may be links to such lists (off-Wikipedia) under the 'external links' section. That is how it should be done with the Tigray War. And since each of the events has already been inserted into Timeline of the Tigray War, there is no downside to deleting all 106 articles in one AfD. Platonk (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References[edit]

    References

    1. ^ The Guardian, 21 December 2020. 'Slaughtered like chickens': Eritrea heavily involved in Tigray conflict, say eyewitnesses
    2. ^ CBC, 2 April 2021: As It Happens: The Friday Edition (from 28:00 to 35:30) Tigray, Ethiopia Massacre
    3. ^ EuroNews, 2 April 2021 – See film embedded in the news item: G7 'seriously concerned' about human rights violations in Ethiopia's Tigray region
    4. ^ a b c The World radio (2 April 2021): Counting the victims in Tigray
    5. ^ The Guardian, 2 April 2021: Ethiopia: 1,900 people killed in massacres in Tigray identified
    6. ^ https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/
    7. ^ https://www.eepa.be//wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Situation-Report-EEPA-Horn-No.-123-09-April-2021.pdf
    8. ^ CBC, 2 April 2021: As It Happens: The Friday Edition (from 28:00 to 35:30) Tigray, Ethiopia Massacre
    9. ^ EuroNews, 2 April 2021 – See film embedded in the news item: G7 'seriously concerned' about human rights violations in Ethiopia's Tigray region
    10. ^ The Guardian, 2 April 2021: Ethiopia: 1,900 people killed in massacres in Tigray identified
    11. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/02/ethiopia-1900-people-killed-in-massacres-in-tigray-identified
    12. ^ https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/
    13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Hageray_massacre&diff=1034023811&oldid=1034023456
    14. ^ https://www.ethiopia-insight.com/2021/02/19/catastrophe-stalks-tigray-again/
    15. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/least-78-priests-massacred-one-zone-tigray-leaked-letter-claims/
    16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#c-Bruce1ee-2021-11-15T10%3A41%3A00.000Z-Dawit_S_Gondaria-2021-11-15T09%3A34%3A00.000Z
    17. ^ CBC, 2 April 2021: As It Happens: The Friday Edition (from 28:00 to 35:30) Tigray, Ethiopia Massacre
    18. ^ EuroNews, 2 April 2021 – See film embedded in the news item: G7 'seriously concerned' about human rights violations in Ethiopia's Tigray region
    19. ^ The Guardian, 2 April 2021: Ethiopia: 1,900 people killed in massacres in Tigray identified
    20. ^ International Policy Digest, 12 April 2021: Is Ethiopia at Risk of Genocide?
    21. ^ Associated Press, 15 November 2021: 'You can't even cry loudly': Counting Ethiopia's war dead
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Botswana–India relations. After two relistings, it seems that consensus is to merge. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    High Commission of India, Gaborone[edit]

    High Commission of India, Gaborone (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. All this article does is confirm the high commission/embassy exists and who the high commissioner/ambassador is. Embassies/high commissions are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    which "user states it to pass GNG test"? No one has said in this AfD that it passes the GNG test. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:AbhiSuryawanshi states it so. Utkarsh555 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar why not considering it to merge and have a redirect to either the list or the relations? Utkarsh555 (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I think that while an embassy might be a possible search term, a high commission is not. Geschichte (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge it with either "List of diplomatic missions of India" or to Botswana–India relations; BUT PLEASE NEVER DELETE ANY INDIAN EMBASSY ARTICLE! Utkarsh555 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume you're changing your !vote from Keep to Merge? LibStar (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, but actually no.😁 Utkarsh555 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok ,I am changing my vote. MERGE Utkarsh555 (talk) 12:20, 17 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Artur Albarran[edit]

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

    Hopelessly incompetent translation from the Portuguese. Listed on Pages Needed translation since April without response. No point in draftifying, as the creator is a SPA, the editor who accepted it from AfC has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the article is highly promotional , and the individual only marginally notable DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I rewrote the article, and I don't think the current version is promotional. This person is a celebrity journalist who has been covered by a variety of media over the years, including his work as CEO of an investment company that ultimately collapsed and surviving leukemia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 22 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 02:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep current article is suitable for Wikipedia. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as the sources currently cited appear to push the topic beyond WP:BASIC. feminist (t) 05:00, 17 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 The Amazing World of Gumball#Waiting for Gumball. ✗plicit 03:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Waiting for Gumball[edit]

    Waiting for Gumball (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 doubt this is notable as an individual series. wizzito | say hello! 02:48, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Macclesfield Basketball Club[edit]

    Macclesfield Basketball 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)

    Basketball club in the village of Macclesfield, South Australia (Population ~ 700) in the Adelaide Hills. Plays in a local league against other villages in the Adelaide Hills. No notable achievements or sources likely. Given that around 25% of people in Australia are aged 12-35, they have around 150 prime-aged people to choose from, so less people available than an average high school ~ 1000 students. So not notable since we don't have articles for high school sports teams. Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 9. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a local club which fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The population of the town has absolutely no bearing on whether the article should be kept or not. The only thing that matters is whether the team has the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE should have been conducted to establish whether it does or not. Alvaldi (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This club has no sporting merit and there is nothing out there apart from its Facebook page and just the local league stats Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nominating this article for deletation if a search during WP:BEFORE showed no significant coverage would be a good and valid reason. However, nominating it because the team comes from a small town and stating it is "not notable since we don't have articles for high school sports teams" is not a valid reason. Alvaldi (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep There is some sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 500 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there may be sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm was fine with it staying until I saw no references. Wp9097 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete article doesn't cite a single source and fails GNG. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - first of all, thanks to Aoziwe for finding that resource. None of the results on the "National" level return results that pertain to this topic. This topic covers the league formed in 2011, and none of the post-2011 entries are relevant to the topic at hand. There are a lot of results from the 1950s, but these are without exception routine coverage reporting scores. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of the topic, even in WP:LOCALINT sources. Therefore I can't find any of our criteria which indicates the topic encyclopedically notable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:26, 17 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 03:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    World of Comedy Film Festival[edit]

    World of Comedy Film Festival (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. Surprisingly for a festival that has run so long, it gets no gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: a Proquest search returns about a dozen results from 2002-2010 with "World of Comedy Film Festival" in the title, and about 50 related to the name in some way, but I have no access to the associated articles to determine if they're sufficient to make this topic notable (though I suspect they do). Mindmatrix 02:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I took a look and could find nothing about them in RS. Also, their official website[34] is now just advertising. So it seems the festival no longer exists, and it's very unlikely it will ever become more notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I did do the ProQuest run Mindmatrix suggested, but after reviewing the results I'm just not convinced that there's enough meat on the bone here. The largest percentage of them are just event calendar listings, rather than substantive analysis of its significance, and the relatively few hits that are actually genuine bylined journalism still don't really add up to much more than reverifying that it existed — the Rob Salem cite that's already in this article is the strongest hit in ProQuest too, while most of the rest are just short blurbs or glancing namechecks of its existence in reviews of films. The hits dry up after 2010, which means this has been defunct for a decade and that's why nothing Googled — and while I'm not suggesting that "it's defunct" should be a deletion rationale in and of itself, I'm just not really finding evidence that it got enough substantive coverage even when it was active. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 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 redirect to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya (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:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence.
      I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record. Advait (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Added citation for notability from the reputed available sources. Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya page must be continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajitkumarpanicker (talk • contribs) 10:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see WP:THREE and don't WP:NOTEBOMB the articles? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid rationale for this college/university. Per WP:UNIN In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    UNIN is an essay that specifically says "the document you are now reading is not a policy or guideline and should not be treated as such." So hopefully the closer ignores your "vote." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the essay illustrates why SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an invalid rationale for deletion. The closer should not ignore any !vote on your say so. Polyamorph (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your intentionally misinterpreting things. The guidelines, essays, etc. etc. are pretty clear that most universities are notable. Not all. In the meantime, why would a closer ignore a vote based on the lack of exiting sources when that's literally what this is based on? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not intentionally misinterpreting anything (in general covers most). The nom on the basis of SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid (you really agree that delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES i.e. most degree awarding institutions are notable makes any sense whatsoever?), no WP:BEFORE had been performed, and as we now know was performed by a sock of a banned user. Which is all reason enough for procedural keep. Polyamorph (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the problem is that you mass voted speedy keep on every article about universities based on them "in general" being notable without looking to see if they actually where or not in each particular instance. In the meantime you have zero evidence the nominator didn't do the minimum required before they did the nominations. In fact, they were pretty clear in another AfD that they did. Which I'm sure you read and is exactly why I said your intentionally misinterpreting (or in this case misrepresenting) things. The sock thing might be a good post-hoc justification for how you voted, but that's about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I !voted on the basis of an invalid nomination rationale. There is absolutely clear evidence the nominator did not do WP:BEFORE. Please drop this stick. You are not proving anything. Polyamorph (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence? I'd like to change my votes in this users AfDs that I voted in if you have information I don't and it seems like from the research I did that there aren't usable references for any of these. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. You haven't even !voted here. Last warning. Drop it or explain to ANI.Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC) user changed their comment above.Polyamorph (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After receiving some pushback on my use of an essay in my !vote, I note that my speedy keep is on the basis that the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES rationale is invalid as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (an explanatory supplement to deletion policy) clearly states Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online.. The essay WP:UNIN (not policy) explains this more succinctly. So no valid deletion rationale has been provided by the nom, who appears not to have performed WP:BEFORE (as evidenced by the fact that some previous discussions kept these articles on the basis of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES!). The OP should explain why they decided to obey instructions from an IP user on their talk page to nominate these articles for deletion - this shows at best naivety on the part of the nominator and at worst meatpuppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete I couldn't find any usable references about this. In the article or otherwise. What's available only seems to be brief, trivial mentions and (or) primary. So at this point deleting it sounds like the right outcome. I'm more then willing to change my vote keep if someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth secondary sources though. I had thought about voting procedural keep, due to the nominator being a sock puppet, but I rather just deal with the now while it's nominated instead of going through the process of nominating it again. I'd totally go with procedural keep if there was any evidence that it's notable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete No indication of notability. The only coverage I see are basic and routine details on the parent university's website, and education websites which are typically user-generated content. – SD0001 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 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 keep. ✗plicit 03:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhar Mann[edit]

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

    The subject’s page looks more like a news report highlighting frauds and allegations, and it fails notability as per WP:BLP and WP:NBIO.

    There is an entire section ‘weGrow and legal issues’ which is about his company, and not him. If this section is there to prove his notability, I see a WP:INHERIT issue here.

    Dhar Mann Studios – again that is the production company and not the subject. Further, the production company makes films only for social media like YouTube. I couldn’t find a single notable film or recognized award to any film produced by them that could make even the production company notable.

    Reference 1 is social media link - https://twitter.com/dharmann/status/1398720779538345993 which doesn’t even meet WP:CITE.

    I also noticed that the page has been deleted before – Speedy Delete. But, the page was recreated in spite of the deletion without any significant changes. And nominated yet again - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhar_Mann_(4th_nomination) Similar issues were highlighted in this nomination – “most reliable sources are just about the crime and allegations. I don’t find significant achievements for him to be included in Wikipedia.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhar_Mann_(3rd_nomination) result was delete Trolli Onida (talk) 01:03, 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. ✗plicit 03:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Christine Philip[edit]

    Christine Philip (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'm unable to find any substantial or any notable information about the subject that's independent and not a "Q&A". Current article and its sources also appear to be more about her company which I have doubts whether it satisfies "WP:NCORP" so it may be worth revisiting whether it deserves to remain in the mainspace. WomenProj (talk) 00:56, 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. ✗plicit 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Frontera (web crawling)[edit]

    Frontera (web crawling) (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 software. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I tagged this for notability, years ago, and no reliable sources have been added since. I just did another search and I see nothing usable. - MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Could not find any third-party coverage, only GutHub repo and Habr posts written by the author of this software. Also, this article reads like promotional content written by authors of the said software. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:15, 12 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 03:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kansai International Film Festival[edit]

    Kansai International Film Festival (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. A one off festival that lacks significant third party coverage. Not sure if there are Japanese sources as there is no Japanese article. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Popboomerang[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Popboomerang (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. Minor independent record label with very few notable artists, contrary to the claims at the last AFD 9 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where is the several releases? The article says that 7 notable artists released 14 records, that's not much at all, that's actually very little. Geschichte (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I've expanded the article, I've tried to track down references for nearly all releases (some of these are brief mentions e.g. AllMusic listing or release info). Some substantial, independent references have also been supplied, typically for 10th anniversary, 100th release or Various Artist compilations. There are more than 7 notable artists providing more than 14 records. How many are sufficient?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I know you've put in a ton of work referencing all the releases *but* we need references that talk about the *company* itself in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:NCORP. Also you might find that going from 7 references to 67 references is not always considered an improvement especially if they're all pointing to announcements about records and artists... see MOS:OVERLINK and WP:REFBOMB. HighKing++ 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep I'd consider this to be more than sufficient personally, but I can understand the opposite perspective here. It's a tricky case, since discussion about the company is almost always indirect, due to the very nature of the industry (unless there's controversy of course, but it seems wrong to only allow for coverage of modern record labels who have done controversial things). I might be wrong here, but that's my personal take. Yitz (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Thoughts on recent improvements?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *about the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, most are referencing the music produced by the company or the artists (announcements, etc) or there's the odd quote/interview with someone affiliated with the company but nothing that meets our criteria for notability of the company itself. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Despite the impressive efforts by Shaidar cuebiyar, the new references do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The AllMusic references demonstrate only that the albums were references but WP:ITEXISTS is not enough to demonstrate notability under the applicable standards. The best sources about the company or its principals are brief one-paragraph passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Geschichte above, questioned the number notable artists and their releases. Indicating there were not enough notable artists. In my vote above I've specified that AllMusic listings (and some similar refs) are largely to support releases per Artists and Discography sections. However, I also added other references, which do describe the label and its releases in more detail. I dispute the interpretation that the new references do not demonstrate significant coverage or that they are not reliable, independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response "Independent" has two elements. The first is corporate independent - fair enough, no corporate links between the reporting entity and the topic company. The second element is "Independent Content" (defined in WP:ORGIND) and I included a summary above. None of your references are independent because none provide "Independent Content" *about the company*. For example, articles that rely entirely on interviews with no analysis/opinion by the author fail ORGIND. We need more than mentions-in-passing or two lines saying Thurling founded the topic company - we require an in-depth article on the topic company (not the founder nor the artists or albums) containing "Independent Content". If you still believe there are references which meet the criteria for establishing notability, please include links to the best WP:THREE below so we can look at them. HighKing++ 22:46, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Andorra–Turkey relations[edit]

    Andorra–Turkey 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)

    Fails WP:GNG. Andorra being a very small country would not be expected to have much relations with other countries. There's a bit of trade but no embassies, agreements, state visits etc. The Turkish foreign affairs site says not much. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolf Sorg[edit]

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

    Written more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | Who, me? 17:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep this looks like any other biographical article on Wikipedia. References could use improvements and more content could be added, and searching his name on Google and going to "news" yields many useful articles to allow the article to be improved if needed. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaddlesJP13 , a Google search for Rolf Sorg turns up Wikipedia & mirrors, as well as his social media. Fails WP:SIGCOV (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    keep.per above.---✨LazyManiik✨ 12:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    First: I have a conflict of interest. Do you not see criteria (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) met with the following sources? Manager Magazin (German), Delano (English), Delano (English), Rheinpfalz (German), Bild (German), Wort (German), Paperjam (English), Capital (French), TV2 (Norwegian)? Kind regards, --CobaltElephant (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: More input needed
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:21, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_9&oldid=1056142841"